#91800 From: "alberto.spera" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: Kusala or akusala? alberto.spera Hi Tep and Nina --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: ..... > > "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, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with > that. When there is no you in connection with 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." > The first line of your quote doesn't sound quite right, since it implies a self seing the seen only. My guess is that the translation is not accurate. But take away the "for you" bit and it makes very good sense. #91801 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:11 am Subject: Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II. hantun1 Dear Nina (Tep), > > Han: (13) su~n~nata-anupassan aa (contemplation of voidness): abhinivesa (misinterpretation) Han: abhinivesa is translated in your book as misinterpretation. According to PTS dictionary, abhinivesa means wishing for, tendency towards, inclination, adherence; as adj. liking, loving, being given or inclined to. What do you think is the best word for abhinivesa? After getting the best word for abhinivesa, can you explain how the contemplation of voidness would abandon abhinivesa? > Nina: Su~n~natta: empty of the self, as is explained in the Majjhima Nikaya. Abhinivesa: wrong adherence (to an idea of self), misinterpratetion of reality. ------------------ > > Han: (16) aadiinava-anupassan aa (contemplation of danger): aalaya-abhinivesa (misinterpretation due to reliance) Han: aalaya is translated in your book as reliance. According to PTS dictionary aalaya means attachment, desire, clinging, lust. What do you think is the best word for aalaya? > Nina: I agree, aalaya is clinging. Because of clinging we do not see the danger of akusala. ================ Han: Thank you very much , Nina, for butting in. I agree with your comments. I will also welcome comments from Tep. Respectfully, Han #91802 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: Kusala or akusala? visitorfromt... Hi Alberto, - We are discussing this quote from Malunkyaputta Sutta : > > > > "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, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with > > that. When there is no you in connection with 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." > > > Alberto: > The first line of your quote doesn't sound quite right, > since it implies a self seing the seen only. > My guess is that the translation is not accurate. > But take away the "for you" bit and it makes very good sense. > T: Maybe the translation is fine since I do not think "it implies a self seing the seen" like you do. To me it means "just see (a visible object) without getting involved". Plain and simple. The "you in connection with that" implies self-identification and conceit that are conditioned by getting involved with "the seen". Tep === #91803 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II. sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Tep), --- On Thu, 23/10/08, han tun wrote: ------------ --------- --------- >Han: Out of the above, I do not quite understand some of them. For example, (>13) su~n~nata-anupassan aa (contemplation of voidness): abhinivesa (misinterpretation) >Han: abhinivesa is translated in your book as misinterpretation. According to PTS dictionary, abhinivesa means wishing for, tendency towards, inclination, adherence; as adj. liking, loving, being given or inclined to. What do you think is the best word for abhinivesa? After getting the best word for abhinivesa, can you explain how the contemplation of voidness would abandon abhinivesa? .... S: The following which I quoted before might be helpful: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/73841 >SN12:15 Kaccaanagotta Sutta (Bodhi transl): "This world, Kaccaana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one [with right view (i.e 'this noble disciple')] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency ('adhi.t.haanaabhinivesaanusayaa'); he does not take a stand about 'my self.'" [S: adhi.t.thaanaabhinivesaanusayaa = adhi.t.thaana + abhinivesa + anusayaa] Note 32, BB:"....Spk says that craving and views are also called "mental standpoints" (adhi.t.thaana) because they are the foundation for the (unwholesome) mind, and "adherences and underlying tendencies" (abhinivesaanusaya) because they adhere to the mind and lie latent within it. Spk connects the verb adhi.t.thaati to the following "attaa me," and I conform to this interpretation in the translation." ======== S: Also, see this quote in a message of Connie's: >I would fix [on it] (abhinivesayya.m), thinking, "It is mine."< The understanding of dhammas as anatta is the only way that the tendencies of wrong view can be eradicated. It was the last line in this message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/81724 >466. Like a worm (kimi va)* means: like (viya) a worm. This foul body (puuti-kaaya.m) means: this foul body (puuti-ka.levara.m). Smelling of sweat(savana-gandha.m)* means: giving out a smell like raw meat (vissa.t.tha-vissa-gandha.m). Frightful (bhayaanaka.m) means: causing fear (bhayaavaha.m) in those not free of passion. I would be associated with (abhisa.mviseyya.m) this foul body means: this leather bag filled with corpses(ku.napa-bharita.m). Always (asakai.m) flowing (paggha-rita.m), full ofimpurities (asuci-pu.n.na.m) means: being full of various sorts of impurity(asucino pu.n.na.m), flowing over (abhipagggharanta.m), not once (asaki.m), butall the time (sabba-kaala.m); ***I would fix [on it] (abhinivesayya.m), thinking,"It is mine."*** ... Metta, Sarah p.s just seen Nina has also responded, but I'll post this anyway. ============== #91804 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:43 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Howard, Tep, Clarifying mindfulness - some textual material to consider: SN 48.10 Dutiyavibha"gasutta.m (Bh. Bodhi): "And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of mindfulness? Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion, one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago. He dwells contemplating the body in the body...feelings in feelings...phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure with regard to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness." Katama~nca , bhikkhave, satindriya.m? Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasaavako satimaa hoti paramena satinepakkena samannaagato, cirakatampi cirabhaasitampi saritaa anussaritaa. So kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapaa sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m; vedanaasu…pe… citte…pe… dhammesu dhammaanupassaa viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m " ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, satindriya.m. Dhammasa.ngani (p.14): "What on that occasion is the faculty of mindfulness? The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness, mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness..." (p.77 - from the section entitled 'Lokuttarakusala.m', since the sutta refers to the 'ariyasaavako' and points to this more developed sati): Same as above until "...mindfulness as faculty and as power, the best mindfulness, the mindfulness which is a factor of enlightenment, a Path-component, contained in the path..." "Katama.m tasmi.m samaye satindriya.m hoti? Yaa tasmi.m samaye sati anussati pa.tissati sati sara.nataa dhaara.nataa apilaapanataa asammussanataa sati satindriya.m satibala.m sammaasati satisambojjha"ngo magga"nga.m maggapariyaapanna.m " ida.m tasmi.m samaye satindriya.m hoti Sammohavinodanii (pp. 270-271, 273), regarding 'the foundations of mindfulness' (Howard, I think this bears on your comments and questions in particular): "Satipa.t.thaana ('foundations of mindfulness'):There are three kinds of foundations of mindfulness. (1) the domain of mindfulness (satigocaro), (2) the Master's threefold surpassing of resentment and gratification as regards the entry of the disciples [on the way of practise] (tidhaa pa.tipannesu saavakesu Sattuno pa.tighaamunaya-viitivattataa), and (3) mindfulness (sati). "(1) In the passage beginning: 'I shall teach, bhikkhus, the arising and disappearance of the four foundations of mindfulness, listen ... And what, bhikkhus, is the arising of the body? With the arising of nutriment there is the arising of the body' (S v 184), it is the 'domain of mindfulness' that is called mindfulness. Likewise in such passages as: 'The body is the establishment (upa.t.thaana), it is not mindfulness. Mindfulness is both establishment and mindfulness.' (Ps i 177, ii 232), the meaning of that is: 'that on which it is founded' (pati.t.thaati) is 'foundation' (pa.t.thaana). What is founded? Mindfulness. [Thus] it is 'mindfulness's foundation' (satiyaa [gen.] pa.t.thaana.m) which is the 'foundation of mindfulness' (sati-pa.t.thaana). "Or foundation (pa.t.thaana) means place for [exercising] effort (padhaana.t.thaana); [in this sense] it is the 'place (pa.t.thaana) for mindfulness (satiyaa; gen. or dat.) that is the 'foundation of mindfulness (satipa.t.thaana), like the 'place for elephants' (hatthi.t.thaana), 'place for horses' (asaa.t.thaana). "(2) As regards the passage: 'There are three foundations of mindfulness which the Noble One cultivates, and cultivating which the Noble One is a master who is worthy to instruct his flock' (M iii 216, 221), here is it the 'threefold surpassing by the Master of resentment and gratification as regards the entry of the disciples [on the way]', that is called 'foundation of mindfulness'. The meaning of that is: 'foundation (pa.t.thaana) is because of what should be founded (pa.t.thapetabba); 'because of what should be made to occur' is the meaning. Because of what should be made to occur because of what? By means of mindfulness (satiya [instr.] pa.t.thaana.m). "(3) But in such passages as: 'The four foundations of mindfulness being developed and frequently practised perfect the seven enlightenment factors' (S v 329), it is mindfulness itself that is called 'foundation of mindfulness'. The meaning of that is: 'what founds (pa.t.thaati) is 'foundation' (pa.t.thaana); it is established (upa.t.thaati); 'having gone down into, entered into, it proceeds' is the meaning. [Thus] mindfulness itself in the sense of foundation (pa.t.thaana.t.thena) is 'foundation of mindfulness' (satipa.t.thaana). "Or alternatively, mindfulness is in the sense of remembrance (sara.na.t.thena), foundation (pa.t.thaana) is in the sense of establishing (upa.t.thaana). Thus it is 'mindfulness and that is the foundation' (sati ca saa pa.t.thaana~nca) is 'foundation of mindfulness' (satipa.t.thaana). This [third kind] is meant here. "If that is so, why are 'foundations of mindfulness' in the plural? Because of the plurality of mindfulness. For that mindfulness is plural corresponding to the different kinds of its object...In this way it should be understood that 'the foundation of mindfulness is one only by way of both remembering and gathering together in unity, and it is four by way of object [of meditation].'" Sincerely, Scott. #91805 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path visitorfromt... Hi KenH, - I am not sure that I should thank you for your negative conversation. >KH: There is a lot of opposition to the view that Magga citta arises purely by conditions and not by free will. T: Of course all sankhata dhammas arise by conditions. But I don't know what you mean by "free will". FYI : These are some supporting conditions for a magga citta: chanda (as Iddhipada dhamma), intent (citta as Iddhipada dhamma), resolve (sankappa), and upholding intent so that a kusala dhamma arises and becomes developed through right effort. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html ........... T: > But Jon already seems to have some trouble accepting your request. --------------------- >KH: If you are fair, Tep, you will concede that Jon's messages to DSG do nothing else. Over the years they have all explained, in one way or another, how the Path is developed gradually - as right understanding of conditioned dhammas develops gradually. There is no sudden, magic fix. There are no rituals that can be performed in order to circumvent the way of conditioned dhammas. T: Are you aware that you've completely and suddenly changed the issue? I have no idea what are talking about now. Sorry. FYI, I only observed that Jon did not accept Suan's request. ............................ >KH: It is true Jon does not believe in a controlling entity. But I think you will have to agree in this case that an effort to explain has nonetheless been made - regularly and over a long period. >Such are conditions! :-) T: I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? By the way, what do you think conditions right effort ? ............................. >KH: As I said at the beginning, the matter at issue here is really the efficacy of formal vipassana meditation. You and Suan are affronted by the suggestion that Dhamma practice is unlike any other practice -that it is purely a matter of having right understanding now. >It's all in the texts. Jon is not adding anything. You and Suan desperately want to believe Jon is adding something and you want other people to believe that too. That is because you are committed to formal vipassana meditation. You think you have too much to lose. >KH: Please correct me if I am wrong. T: Of course you are wrong as usual. Tep === #91806 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:51 am Subject: Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II. hantun1 Dear Sarah (Tep, Nina), Thank you very much for your kind comments. I will study them carefully. Yours sincerely, Han #91807 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/22/2008 11:02:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: T: No, it is not a conundrum or self-contradiction to me, Howard. Please allow me to offer you a thought on how I read this sutta. The faculty of mindfulness (satindriya) consists of two related functions of mindfulness, i.e. recollection or "remembering and recall" without difficulty, AND establishing 'sati' in the four frames of reference (or foundations) as defined by MN 10 and SN 47.40(Analysis of the Frames of Reference). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: In that case, Tep, I do not see the "sati" being discussed by the Buddha here to be what is referred to in Abhidhamma as a "paramattha dhamma". Instead, it is certainly a conventional phenomenon - a dyad of sorts that is an amalgam of the operation of memory in the ordinary sense and the mind-monitoring operation of watchfulness that I have described before and called "sati." I also, am wondering at this point, whether you are distinguishing satindriya from sati. Are you? I thought that they were alternative takes on the same thing, with only the connotation differing. ------------------------------------------------- I think the ability to recollect precisely and quickly supports the establishment of mindfulness in the four frames of reference here & now. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see how recalling things long gone provides such support, but even if that is so, these are not the same phenomenon, and one phenomenon supporting a second doesn't seem to me to be a sound basis for combining the two as a single phenomenon. -------------------------------------------------- In SN 48.50 the Chief Disciple briefly related saddha to the faculty of mindfulness and faculty of concentration as follows: "With a noble disciple who has conviction, who is resolute and persistent, it may be expected that he will be mindful, highly meticulous, remembering and able to call to mind even things that were done and said long ago. Whatever mindfulness he has, is his faculty of mindfulness. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Two points: 1) This only gives saddha as support for sati. You're not prepared on the basis of that to also incorporate saddha, in the same way as ordinary memory, as yet a third "function of sati," are you? 2) The last sentence of the foregoing sutta material you quote identifies sati with satindriya. ------------------------------------------------------- "With a noble disciple who has conviction, who is resolute and persistent, and whose mindfulness is established ('tuned'), it may be expected that- making it his object to let- he will attain concentration and singleness of mind. Whatever concentration he has, is his faculty of concentration." ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, okay. So this says that conviction, resoluteness (cetana & viriya?), and mindfulness together will usually lead to concentration. That doesn't seem to have any bearing on the issue I raised, does it? --------------------------------------------------- The arahant Sariputta said that saddha supported the first function of satindriya, and the second function of satindriya supported samadhi. There is no conflict. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I still see very much of a problem remaining. -------------------------------------------------- Tep ========================= With metta, Howard #91808 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Phil), I meant to thank you for the your kind note and the following good extract from the recording: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > "...Its not one's own understanding its just there own thinking...So > we understand the meaning of development of understand and if we know > theoretically what is ruupa and what is naama its not like the moment > of awareness when it arises...That is the moment of real studying - > the characteristic of a reality - to be ruupa or to be naama by not > naming it or by not thinking about it but by understanding that > characteristic as hardness cannot be anything besides hardness itself. > And that which experiences hardness is different. One at a time > until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We > don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look whether > this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of > beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality cannot > experience anything at all. We don't have to say out or speak in > words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic > begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things..." > > Scott: The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books. ... S: Exactly! Like others, I'm enjoying the discussion between you and Phil. Phil's writing at his funniest best and he's even bringing out a funny side in you:-) I loved Phil's quip about the discussing the last javana citta..... Phil, I have a (slightly) funny story to tell you. Since Jon's been away, I've adopted his habit (which I never have when he's around) of going to sleep listening to one of the dhamma recordings on my i-pod. [I'm still getting used to it - if I change sides, I have to change the ear-plug, for example.] Anyway, last night I was listening to part of this recent (KK Jan 2007) series when I heard the part about the discussion of your points on the Rahula sutta which I was raising. I thought, I must make a mental note of the track so that I could tell you, so even though I'd been half-asleep, I sat up to turn the light on to check it. However, I still couldn't see it without my glasses which were in another room, so I gave up. Now you'll have to listen to the whole series to find it, ha ha! Metta, Sarah ======== #91809 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/23/2008 12:07:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, --------- KH: > > There are many forms of mindfulness ranging from ordinary everyday mindfulness (of concepts) - that can occur even when there is no knowledge of the Dhamma - right up Right Mindfulness (of present parramattha dhammas) belonging to the Eightfold Path. > > Howard: > That may be so, Ken, but I don't think it is the party line. ---------- I am pretty sure it is: I think the commissars would approve. :-) ------------------ H: > If I'm not mistaken, sati, at least as it is viewed by KS and admirers, must be mindfulness of paramattha dhammas. ------------------ No, that is not the message I get. When there is metta, for example, the object of consciousness is a concept, isn't it? Sati is present in every moment of metta (as in all kusala consciousness). So, sati can experience concepts as well as dhammas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, maybe so, though, I think that Sarah, for example, might say that it isn't a person who is object at an actual moment of metta. I could be wrong, though. Maybe I'm confusing sati and pa~n~na. Now, when there is metta, Ken, can pa~n~na be present? I must say, though, that as I see it, one experiences metta only when thinking about (or conceptualizing) a person, and any sati that is there at that time is a staying present with what is actually happening at that time, namely the nama that is the thinking-about-a-person. I take sati to be a mi nd-monitoring operation pertaining to mental functions (i.e., namas) and not mental projections. When there is metta towards a person, no person is there - there is just thinking that is going on. Persons don't occur in mind streams. They are complex aggregations of phenomena that are known about by thinking, but they are not individual phenomena, and they are not the objects of sati. In that regard, look at what the Buddha says about the foundations of mindfulness in the Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta (SN 47.40): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the path of practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak. "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames of reference. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note that mindfulness of persons is NOT mentioned. ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------- H: > Actually, it happens that I pretty much concur with that view that mindfulness is being present with what *actually* is happening at the moment, and that is always a paramattha dhamma. -------------------------- I would say mindfulness (sati) was aware (conscious of) of its object (aramanna). Checking with my copy of "Cetasikas" I see that sati is "heedful, non-forgetful, of kusala." That doesn't mean the arammana of sati is necessarily kusala, it just means sati experiences the arammana while being non-forgetful of kusala. -------------------------- H: > When remembering something is what is happening at the moment, that operation is a cetasika, and mindfulness will prevent one from getting lost in the conceived memory and will in fact enable being aware of what is actually going on, namely a specific recollecting. -------------------------- Maybe so, but all of that sort of thing will happen in the same moment. Any enabling of kusala consciousness will occur concurrently with the kusala consciousness it enables. ------------------------ H: > When thinking arises, mindfulness is being present with that operation of thinking, forestalling getting lost in thought and enabling the awareness of the thinking, which is what is actually going on (as opposed to what is thought about). ------------------------ That sounds more like the function of samadhi (one pointedness). But, in any case, I am pretty sure consciousness [with or without sati] of thinking will occur only when thinking is the arammana (object of consciousness). I remember you said recently that, in your opinion, consciousness (citta and cetasikas) could be aware of their co-arising feeling (vedana) even before vedana could be taken as an actual object of consciousness. But, as you know, I disagree. ------------------------------------ H: > However, I agree that the initial part of the sutta that speaks of "remembering and able to call to mind even things that were done and said long ago" does not go in that direction of mindfulness being the staying present with what is actually happening in the moment. And I still find that as contradicting what then follows. <. . .> ------------------------------------ My understanding of the texts is less complicated. Sati can experience thoughts of long-ago events (concepts), or it can experience presently arisen dhammas. As I said, it is the same cetasika in both cases. ---------------------------------------------- KH: > > But they are all the same cetasika - sati. > > Howard: > If they are, then since they are so different, identifying them all as "sati" is *certainly* a matter of convention, which makes sati a conventional operation! ----------------------------------------------- I would say they differ in their intensity, and in the nature of their arammana. However, in all cases they perform the same function (of experiencing their arammana with non-forgetfulness of kusala). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What is that non-forgetfulness? What is not being forgotten? That requires a genuine answer, it seem to me. --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ <. . .> H: > Howard: :-) I sure see the barrier between conventional and ultimate rapidly crumbling. Reminds me of the Berlin wall! ------------------------------- I agree in a way. There are always only dhammas. Concepts are never anything more than mere designations. The more we understand that the less likely we will be to get *caught out* by mere designations. (They won't have to act as barriers to right understanding.) ------------- KH: > > So I think the point in this sutta (as in the Satipatthana Sutta) is that all phenomena - even those of the Eightfold Path - are just conditioned dhammas. > > Howard: > Man! That sure strikes me as a non sequitur. ------------- How so? I would have thought it was entirely sequitur. :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: You think it is a sequitur, because you are a "follower"! ;-)) ------------------------------------------ Ken H =========================== With metta, Howard #91810 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Back to #90841. Apologies for the delay - I had to trace back my last message to understand your first comments. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > S: Is this you understanding? > >A: That would need to be clarified. .... S: Just to refresh, you quoted the following: A: >>Speaking generally, the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga tend more strongly to emphasize the negative sides of asceticism (i.e., asceticism as a process of negating desire), and show a strong concern with regulating everyday bodily activities and sexual desires. They also place considerable emphasis on the rejection of all views, and are reluctant to put forward positions of their own regarding basic metaphysical issues. .... >S: Is this you understanding? .... S: So in response to my question, you wrote: "That would need to be clarified." So please do clarify what your understanding is. .... > >S: Are all views rejected or just wrong views? > > .... > 1st) It depends upon what you mean by "view" ... S: I'm asking for your clarification of the quote you selected and presumably agree with. .... >A: 2nd) Ultimately and at a certain stage even the "Dhamma" has to be let go of (not rejected though) - parable of the raft, and MN74. ... S: It's the **clinging** to the Dhamma that has to be let go of. ... > > >A: The Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga also differ in their > > articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on > > what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little > > evidence of vipassana at all, despite the important role played by the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to > >be connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct > >view to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views. > > ... > > S: Do you agree with these comments you quoted? > >A: A lot of things depend on what precisely do we meen by insight & > samatha. ... S: What do *you* mean? You quoted it. ... A:> Can lets say aruppa's be used for an insight and as aid to > insight? Would using Aruppas (for liberation, ex mn106) be counted as insight or samatha? ... S: I don't see the relevance to the quotes. ... > >S: When I read the Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga, every sutta, > beginning with the first one, "Kaama Sutta" is about the development > of vipassana and the attainment of enlightenment. They are all about > the development of right understanding, right view and the > eradication of wrong views and other defilements. > > > > For example, the last stanza of this first sutta reads (Ven > Saddhatissa transl.): > > > > "Therefore, let one always be thoughtful and avoid sensual > pleasures; having abandoned them let him cross the flood [of > defilements] and, like baling out a damaged ship, go to the further > shore [Nibbaana]." > > > > S: In other words, he has realised the Four Noble Truths through > the development of vipassana and 'crossed the flood'. > > > >A: By lack of "insight" the author may have meant that those suttas > stress what you call "conventional" activities and situations. The > suttas do NOT speak about heavy theoretical teachings of 89/121 > cittas each lasting 1 trillionth of a second, 24 conditions and all > that (it may be right, but sometimes sticking to the basics is the > most important first step). ... S: The insight is into the nature of conditioned realities regardless of the language of the sutta. This is what these verses are pointing to. The 'important first step' always comes back to the understanding now of dhammas. Your other comments are not relevant to the point that the Wikipedia author (whom I took you to be agreeing with) was suggesting that these sections of the Sutta Nipata showed "very little evidence of vipassana at all". Metta, Sarah ======== #91811 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II. visitorfromt... Dear Han and Nina, - Thank you both : Han for the tough questions, and Nina for nice answers. > (13) su~n~nata-anupassanaa (contemplation of voidness): abhinivesa > (misinterpretation) > > Han: abhinivesa is translated in your book as misinterpretation. > According to PTS dictionary, abhinivesa means wishing for, tendency > towards, inclination, adherence; as adj. liking, loving, being > given or inclined to. What do you think is the best word for > abhinivesa? After getting the best word for abhinivesa, can you > explain how the contemplation of voidness would abandon abhinivesa? > ----------- > N: Su~n~natta: empty of the self, as is explained in the Majjhima > Nikaya. Abhinivesa: wrong adherence (to an idea of self), > misinterpratetion of reality. -------- T: The several meanings for 'abhinivesa' given by PTS dictionary point to one thing : tanha. We all have inclination towards and adherence to pleasurable objects due to tanha. The term 'su~n~nata' means "void, empty, devoid of lusts, evil dispositions, and karma, but especially of soul, ego", according to PTS. Therefore, the contemplation of su~n~nata would lead to the mind that is empty of lust, evil dispositions AND misinterpretation due to believing in a soul (or ego) in the body and mind. =============== > (16) aadiinava-anupassanaa (contemplation of danger): aalaya- > abhinivesa (misinterpretation due to reliance) > > Han: aalaya is translated in your book as reliance. According to > PTS dictionary aalaya means attachment, desire, clinging, lust. > What do you think is the best word for aalaya? ------- N: I agree, aalaya is clinging. Because of clinging we do not see the danger of akusala. T: Yes, PTS says 'aalaya' is 'attachment, desire, clinging, lust'. But Ven. Nanamoli also added "due to formations" after the word reliance, i.e. : "Through contemplation of danger in the case of misinterpretation due to reliance[on formations]." So I think the best meaning for aalaya is clinging on formations. T: I have one more comment. In (14) it does not sound right : (14) adhipa~n~naa-dhamma-vipassanaa (insight into ideas which is the higher understanding): saaraadaana-abhinivesa (misinterpretation due to greed) Here 'saara' does not mean greed. It means essence or hardest part of anything. The misinterpretation of a 'core' (that is essential) is restrained and non-transgressed through the higher understanding. Regards, Tep === #91812 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II. hantun1 Dear Tep (Nina, Sarah), Thank you very much for your kind comments. Now, I have enough home-work to do. I will have to take time to digest all these valuable comments. Thank you all, Respectfully, Han #91813 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:31 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries visitorfromt... Hello Howard,- I think your questions are relevant. My reply below is what I think I understand mindfulness and mindfulness faculty; I believe at least in principle I am not contradicting to the Buddha. >Howard: I do not see the "sati" being discussed by the Buddha here to be what is referred to in Abhidhamma as a "paramattha dhamma". Instead, it is certainly a conventional phenomenon - a dyad of sorts that is an amalgam of the operation of memory in the ordinary sense and the mind-monitoring operation of watchfulness that I have described before and called "sati." T: Sati as the cetasika dhamma is not divisible further, unlike satindriya. Sati is conditioned by sa~n~naa. Since part of sa~n~naa is memory, thus sati is defined as remembering and recalling or recollecting whatever sa~n~naa marked. This function is necessary for conducting any mental activity, including meditation and development of kusala dhamma. BTW I do not know what a paramattha dhamma is. >Howard: also, am wondering at this point, whether you are distinguishing satindriya from sati. Are you? T: Yes, I am. Sati is the basic buildling block of satindriya. Sati helps the meditator to be mindful (remembering, keeping in mind) the object of satipatthana in a given moment. Satindriya achieves the objective of satipatthana i.e. establishment in the four foundations and "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". ............................... > > Tep: I think the ability to recollect precisely and quickly supports the establishment of mindfulness in the four frames of reference here & now. >Howard: I don't see how recalling things long gone provides such support, but even if that is so, these are not the same phenomenon, and one phenomenon supporting a second doesn't seem to me to be a sound basis for combining the two as a single phenomenon. T: You may have misunderstood me. Satipatthana or satindriya is about establishment of sati (mindfulness) on the four frames of reference with the purpose of "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". Through a quick recollection(through sa~n~naa) on any akusala and its danger, sati stops it from defiling the mind such that awareness and understanding can perform its abandoning function. Satindriya is not a single phenomenon, it is a sequence of sati that is accompanied by other dhammas like atapi(exertion) and sampajanna (awareness, alertness). ................................. T: Referring to the first half of my quote from SN 48.50, which is about satindriya in a noble one who has conviction, is resolute, persistent, mindful, meticulous and remembering "even things that were done and said long ago", you made two points: >Howard: Two points: 1) This only gives saddha as support for sati. You're not prepared on the basis of that to also incorporate saddha, in the same way as ordinary memory, as yet a third "function of sati," are you? 2) The last sentence of the foregoing sutta material you quote identifies sati with satindriya. T: Point 1. No, we do not need to create more definition ! Point 2. I am not sure what this point implies. Sorry. ................................. T: About the second part of the sutta quote, you wrote: >Howard: Mmm, okay. So this says that conviction, resoluteness (cetana & viriya?), and mindfulness together will usually lead to concentration. That doesn't seem to have any bearing on the issue I raised, does it? T: Persistence is 'viriya', Howard. Resolution refers to samma- sankappa (right resolve) the 2nd magga factor about kusala vitakka. What was the issue you raised? .............................. > > Tep: The arahant Sariputta said that saddha supported the first function of satindriya, and the second function of satindriya supported samadhi. There is no conflict. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I still see very much of a problem remaining. T: Okay, Howard. Ask more questions or get another opinion. Tep === #91814 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/23/2008 12:31:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hello Howard,- I think your questions are relevant. My reply below is what I think I understand mindfulness and mindfulness faculty; I believe at least in principle I am not contradicting to the Buddha. >Howard: I do not see the "sati" being discussed by the Buddha here to be what is referred to in Abhidhamma as a "paramattha dhamma". Instead, it is certainly a conventional phenomenon - a dyad of sorts that is an amalgam of the operation of memory in the ordinary sense and the mind-monitoring operation of watchfulness that I have described before and called "sati." T: Sati as the cetasika dhamma is not divisible further, unlike satindriya. Sati is conditioned by sa~n~naa. Since part of sa~n~naa is memory, thus sati is defined as remembering and recalling or recollecting whatever sa~n~naa marked. This function is necessary for conducting any mental activity, including meditation and development of kusala dhamma. BTW I do not know what a paramattha dhamma is. --------------------------------------------- Howard: It is either nibbana or any element of any of the five khandhas. ------------------------------------------ >Howard: also, am wondering at this point, whether you are distinguishing satindriya from sati. Are you? T: Yes, I am. Sati is the basic buildling block of satindriya. Sati helps the meditator to be mindful (remembering, keeping in mind) the object of satipatthana in a given moment. Satindriya achieves the objective of satipatthana i.e. establishment in the four foundations and "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". ............................... > > Tep: I think the ability to recollect precisely and quickly supports the establishment of mindfulness in the four frames of reference here & now. >Howard: I don't see how recalling things long gone provides such support, but even if that is so, these are not the same phenomenon, and one phenomenon supporting a second doesn't seem to me to be a sound basis for combining the two as a single phenomenon. T: You may have misunderstood me. Satipatthana or satindriya is about establishment of sati (mindfulness) on the four frames of reference with the purpose of "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". ----------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, a satipatthana is a foundation (or field of application) for sati, and satindriya is a mental faculty not at all different from sati. I already pointed out from SN 48.50 the statement "Whatever mindfulness he has, is his faculty of mindfulness," which identifies sati and satindriya. So, I question your distinguishing of them. ------------------------------------------ Through a quick recollection(through sa~n~naa) on any akusala and its danger, sati stops it from defiling the mind such that awareness and understanding can perform its abandoning function. Satindriya is not a single phenomenon, it is a sequence of sati that is accompanied by other dhammas like atapi(exertion) and sampajanna (awareness, alertness). ................................. T: Referring to the first half of my quote from SN 48.50, which is about satindriya in a noble one who has conviction, is resolute, persistent, mindful, meticulous and remembering "even things that were done and said long ago", you made two points: >Howard: Two points: 1) This only gives saddha as support for sati. You're not prepared on the basis of that to also incorporate saddha, in the same way as ordinary memory, as yet a third "function of sati," are you? 2) The last sentence of the foregoing sutta material you quote identifies sati with satindriya. T: Point 1. No, we do not need to create more definition ! Point 2. I am not sure what this point implies. Sorry. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I reiterated my point above. You distinguish sati and satindriya, but the Buddha seems to identify them. -------------------------------------------- ................................. T: About the second part of the sutta quote, you wrote: >Howard: Mmm, okay. So this says that conviction, resoluteness (cetana & viriya?), and mindfulness together will usually lead to concentration. That doesn't seem to have any bearing on the issue I raised, does it? T: Persistence is 'viriya', Howard. Resolution refers to samma- sankappa (right resolve) the 2nd magga factor about kusala vitakka. What was the issue you raised? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! I almost forget, myself, at this point! The issue was what I see as a possible contradiction in the sutta (unless sati is understood as a conventional phenomenon). ------------------------------------------------ .............................. > > Tep: The arahant Sariputta said that saddha supported the first function of satindriya, and the second function of satindriya supported samadhi. There is no conflict. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I still see very much of a problem remaining. T: Okay, Howard. Ask more questions or get another opinion. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I thank you for giving yours. :-) BTW, often it seems to me that you think agreement of view is of great importance. I don't see things that way. It is pleasant, to be sure, but not so important. ------------------------------------------------------ Tep =========================== With metta, Howard #91815 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 nilovg Dear Scott, Op 23-okt-2008, om 15:16 heeft sarahprocterabbott het volgende geschreven: Quote from recording: > ".....That is the moment of real studying - > > the characteristic of a reality - to be ruupa or to be naama by not > > naming it or by not thinking about it but by understanding that > > characteristic as hardness cannot be anything besides hardness > itself. > > And that which experiences hardness is different. One at a time > > until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We > > don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look > whether > > this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of > > beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality > cannot > > experience anything at all. We don't have to say out or speak in > > words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic > > begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things..." > > > > Scott: The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books. -------- N: Thank you, I enjoyed very much reading this. Listening, and then reading again is very helpful. I am glad that it is better with Luke, as you wrote to Phil. After all your diabetis courses you followed. Nina. #91816 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Hello Howard, Tep & all, > "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Hello Howard (Scott, Nina, Alex, Han), - > >I presented this very relevant SN 48.10 sutta quote with no >comments or "volunteered" interpretation. Thank you for responding >with questions for further discussion. > ========================= > > > >"And what is the faculty of mindfulness? > There is the case where amonk, a noble disciple, is mindful, highly > meticulous, remembering and able to call to mind even things that > were doneand said long ago. > > >He remains focused on the body in and of itself -ardent, alert, > and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference to the > world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the >mind > in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves- ardent, > alert, and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference > to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness." > [SN 48.10 Indriya-vibhanga Sutta] > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Thank you for this sutta. It does seem self-contradictory, though, > does it not? Being mindful may mean that one remembers not to get carried with whatever nama-rupa is arising at the present moment. You know, pure samatha without sati & panna is impossible. If you aren't mindful of the body, then it may move and break the concentration. If you aren't mindful of feelings, than they may condition volition to move the body or produce lust/hateful intentions/thoughts. If one isn't mindful and doesn't remember not to get carried away in thought, then samatha can't happen either. If one doesn't remember not to get mechanically carried away with self belief, hindrances and so on - samatha can't happen. Thus whenever proper "samatha" practice is done, it is done with "Vipassana" as well. Ok, I went a bit off topic. But I hope it was useful. Best wishes, #91817 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Tep) - In a message dated 10/23/2008 2:57:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Being mindful may mean that one remembers not to get carried with whatever nama-rupa is arising at the present moment. You know, pure samatha without sati & panna is impossible. If you aren't mindful of the body, then it may move and break the concentration. If you aren't mindful of feelings, than they may condition volition to move the body or produce lust/hateful intentions/thoughts. If one isn't mindful and doesn't remember not to get carried away in thought, then samatha can't happen either. If one doesn't remember not to get mechanically carried away with self belief, hindrances and so on - samatha can't happen. Thus whenever proper "samatha" practice is done, it is done with "Vipassana" as well. Ok, I went a bit off topic. But I hope it was useful. ============================= Thanks for writing. :-) I have no disagreement with what you said. (Oh, and off-topic is fine, especially when it is recognized as such. ;-) With metta, Howard #91818 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:02 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,308 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 308. (d) Then the individual essences of ignorance, etc., owing to the penetration of which ignorance, etc., are rightly penetrated as to their specific characteristic, are profound since they are difficult to fathom. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in penetration. For here the meaning of ignorance as unknowing and unseeing and non-penetration of the truth is profound; so is the meaning of formations as forming and accumulating with and without greed; so is the meaning of consciousness as void, uninterested, and manifestation of rebirth-linking without transmigration; so is the meaning of mentality-materiality as simultaneous arising, as resolved into components or not, and as bending [on to an object] (namana) and being molested (ruppana); so is the meaning of the sixfold base as predominance, world, door, field, and possession of objective field; so is the meaning of contact as touching, impingement, coincidence, and concurrence; so is the meaning of feeling as the experiencing of the stimulus of an object, as pleasure or pain or neutrality, as soulless, and as what is felt; so is the meaning of craving as a delighting in, as a committal to, as a current, as a bindweed, as a river, as the ocean of craving, and as impossible to fill; so is the meaning of clinging as grasping, seizing, misinterpreting, adhering, and hard to get by; so is the meaning of becoming as accumulation, forming, and flinging into the various kinds of generation, destiny, station, and abode; so is the meaning of birth as birth, coming to birth, descent [into the womb], rebirth, and manifestation; and so is the meaning of ageing-and-death as destruction, fall, break-up and change. This is profundity of 'penetration'. *********************** 308. yasmaa cettha yo so avijjaadiina.m sabhaavo, yena pa.tividdhena avijjaadayo sammaa salakkha.nato pa.tividdhaa honti, so duppariyogaahattaa gambhiiro, tasmaa ida.m bhavacakka.m pa.tivedhagambhiira.m. tathaa hettha avijjaaya a~n~naa.naadassanasaccaasampa.tivedha.t.tho gambhiiro, sa"nkhaaraana.m abhisa"nkhara.naayuuhanasaraagaviraaga.t.tho, vi~n~naa.nassa su~n~nataabyaapaaraasa"nkantipa.tisandhipaatubhaava.t.tho, naamaruupassa ekuppaadavinibbhogaavinibbhoganamanaruppana.t.tho, sa.laayatanassa adhipatilokadvaarakhettavisayibhaava.t.tho, phassassa phusanasa"ngha.t.tanasa"ngatisannipaata.t.tho , vedanaaya aaramma.narasaanubhavanasukhadukkhamajjhattabhaavanijjiivavedayita.t.tho. ta.nhaaya abhinanditajjhosaanasaritaalataanadiita.nhaasamuddaduppuura.t.tho, upaadaanassa aadaanaggaha.naabhinivesaparaamaasaduratikkama.t.tho, bhavassa aayuuhanaabhisa"nkhara.nayonigati.thitinivaasesu khipana.t.tho, jaatiyaa jaatisa~njaati okkantinibbattipaatubhaava.t.tho, jaraamara.nassa khayavayabhedavipari.naama.t.tho gambhiiroti ayamettha pa.tivedhagambhiirataa. #91819 From: "connie" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:15 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,308 nichiconn #91818 Path of Purity, pp.704-5: And because that intrinsic nature of ignorance and so on, by the intuition of which ignorance and so on are rightly penetrated as to their characteristics, is difficult to fathom, therefore is this wheel of becoming profound in penetration. For since the nature of ignorance being opposed to knowledge, to discernment, to the penetration of the truths is a profound (matter); and profound is the nature of the activities being prepared, putting forth energy, being with and without passion; as also is the nature of consciousness being void, being not occupied, not transmigrating, manifesting itself in rebirth; and the nature of name-and-form arising together, being separate and not separate in classification, bending and changing; and the nature of sixfold sense being the dominant influence, the world, the door, the field, the province; and the nature of contact being the touching, impinging, concourse, meeting together; the nature of feeling enjoying the taste of objects, being pleasant, painful and neutral, not the soul (jiiva) and experiencing; the nature of craving being a delighting, an attachment, a flowing, like a creeper, like a river, an ocean of thirst, hard to fill; the nature of grasping being a clinging, seizing, laying to heart, perversion, difficult to transcend; the nature of becoming being co-ordinating, preparing, throwing one on to a place of birth, on to a course, on to a conscious duration, on to an abode; the nature of birth being a first birth, complete birth, descent (into the matrix), coming to birth, appearance; and the nature of old-age-and-death being a falling off, decaying, breaking, transforming, - is the profundity in penetration here to be understood. #91820 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:01 pm Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path kenhowardau Hi Tep, ------------------- <. . .> T: Of course all sankhata dhammas arise by conditions. But I don't know what you mean by "free will". ---------------- I mean just what it means in ordinary usage. Free will is a conventional explanation for the conventional activities living beings engage in every day. If the conventional world exists at all, so does free will. They are inseparable. If, however, the world is ultimately just namas and rupas arising at one of the six doorways then the notion of free will is irrelevant, and there is only conditionality. ---------------------------- T: > FYI : These are some supporting conditions for a magga citta: chanda (as Iddhipada dhamma), intent (citta as Iddhipada dhamma), resolve (sankappa), and upholding intent so that a kusala dhamma arises and becomes developed through right effort. ---------------------------- Whether you know it or not, you are talking here about conditioned dhammas. They belong to the momentary, ultimately real, world. They are not part of the illusory world of people and free will. -------------------- <. . .> T: Are you aware that you've completely and suddenly changed the issue? ----------------------- The reason for my post was to point out the real issue in this thread. You and Suan were pretending to believe that Jon had invented his own theories and passed them off as established Dhamma. I'll won't go into it any further just now. I don't want to disrupt the original discussion between Suan and Jon. ----------------------------------------- T: > I have no idea what are talking about now. Sorry. ----------------------------------------- That's OK. Apology accepted! :-) ---------------------------- <. . .> T: I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? ---------------------------- The trouble here, Tep, is you refuse to consider the ultimately real world taught in the Abhidhamma. For as long as you refuse to consider that world you will be unable to understand conditioned dhammas. You will forever be asking, "But if [so-and-so] says there is no control how can he cross a street safely? Why doesn't he walk into trees, jump under a train . . . (etc., etc.)." ------------------- T: > By the way, what do you think conditions right effort ? ------------------- That's an easy one, it's in the suttas: Right understanding conditions right effort. ---------------------------- > >KH: Please correct me if I am wrong. > T: Of course you are wrong as usual. ----------------------------- I can't say I didn't ask for that. :-) Ken H #91821 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:20 pm Subject: Luminous is Mind! bhikkhu0 Friends: Essentially Luminous but veiled by defilement is Mind: The exalted Buddha once said: Friends, I know of no other single thing, so quickly changing as this swift mind, insofar as it is not easy to find just one other phenomena changing equally fast. Shining bright, friends, is this mind, yet it is obstructed by external defilements. Luminous absolutely, is that pure mind, when it is safely released and freed from these alien impurities. Naturally Radiant is this mind, though it is soiled by these accumulated foreign obscurations. This, the ordinary unlearned persons cannot understand as it really is! I tell you, that is why uneducated ordinary persons neither meditate nor develop mentally. Luminous is that mind, friends, when it is purified & released from these fermented pollutions. This does the learned Noble Disciple fully understand as it really is. I tell you, that is why that educated Noble Disciple develops & improve mentally by training meditation... Source: The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: Ańguttara Nikāya I 8-11: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.8-10.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #91822 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the suttas about monks who developed both calm and insight, but we should not conclude that we all must develop jhna. Many people who came to see the Buddha were used to developing samatha already and the Buddha exhorted them to develop vipassan as well so that defilements could be eradicated. If monks in the Buddhas time had accumulated conditions for jhna, jhnacittas could arise. If they did not cling to jhna there could be right understanding of jhna as only a conditioned reality, not self. Is it necessary to develop mindfulness of breathing in order that there can be later on mindfulness of any nma or rpa which appears? This is a question which is often asked and it was asked also during the sessions. Mindfulness of breathing is a subject of samatha and it is also included in mindfulness of the body which is one of the four applications of mindfulness. If one wants to develop mindfulness of breathing as an object of calm one should know that this is one of the most difficult subjects of samatha. It can easily be an object of clinging instead of an object of calm. Breath is rpa, conditioned by citta. It appears at the nosetip or upperlip, but it is very subtle. One may be thinking of a concept of breath instead of being mindful of it. We may take for breath what is not this kind of rpa. If there are conditions for mindfulness of breath it can appear as hardness, a characteristic of the Element of Earth, as heat, a characteristic of the Element of Fire, or as motion or oscillation, a characteristic of the Element of Wind. These characteristics can appear, no matter whether one is walking, sitting, standing or lying down. Breath is tangible object, only a rpa, but we cling to it. Dont we cling to tangible objects in our daily life, all day long? We cannot stop clinging merely by sitting down and trying to concentrate on the nosetip or upperlip. Calm is not the same as concentration. We should remember that concentration is a cetasika that accompanies each citta and that can thus arise with kusala citta as well as with akusala citta. When akusala citta with clinging arises there is wrong concentration, there cannot be right concentration. When the feeling is indifferent one may think that there is calm, but, as we have seen, there can be clinging accompanied by indifferent feeling. People who apply themselves to yoga may concentrate on breath for reasons of health or relaxation. One may benefit from yoga in different ways, but one should know that the aim of samatha is temporary freedom from defilements. In samatha right understanding of the way how to develop calm is indispensable, it is not sufficient to know in theory that we have a great deal of clinging. We have to find out whether there is at this moment clinging, even if it is subtle. We should be honest with ourselves. If we do not know whether the citta at this moment is kusala citta or akusala citta there cannot be development of calm. The test is always at this moment. ******** Nina. #91823 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:46 am Subject: Survey Quotes. nilovg Dear friends, If sati is not aware of the characteristic of feeling, it will not be possible to abandon the wrong view that dhammas are living beings, persons or self. We all consider feeling as something very important in life. We all want pleasant feeling, nobody wants to have unpleasant feeling. Therefore, we strive with all means to have bodily pleasant feeling or mental pleasant feeling. However, one may not know that there is at such moments clinging, that one tries to hold on to feeling which arises because of its own conditions and then falls away again. The Buddha classified feeling cetasika as a separate khandha, vedankkhandha, because people attach great importance to feeling and cling to it. It is a reality people take for self, as a living being or a person, as being of the greatest value. It is necessary to listen to the Dhamma and study it evermore in detail, to consider what one has learnt and to investigate the truth of dhammas in daily life, so that sati can arise and be aware of the characteristics of the dhammas which appear. ******* Nina. #91824 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:55 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (13-18), commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: 'Three kinds of craving: sensual craving, craving for becoming, craving for extinction. (Tisso ta.nhaa - kaamata.nhaa, bhavata.nhaa, vibhavata.nhaa.) ------ The Co explains that sensual craving is desire for the five strands of sensepleasure, thus all the objects that can be experienced through the senses. There can also be desire for becoming in the brahma-planes as a result of ruupajhaana and aruupajhaana. N: Craving for becoming may be unaccompanied by wrong view or accompanied by it. When it is accompanied by wrong view it is desire accompanied by eternity belief. Craving for extinction is desire accompanied by the wrong view of annihilation. Co: Kaamata.nhaati pa~ncakaamagu.niko raago. Ruupaaruupabhavesu pana raago jhaananikantisassatadi.t.thisahagato raago bhavavasena patthanaa bhavata.nhaa. Ucchedadi.t.thisahagato raago vibhavata.nhaa. ----------- The co explains that apart from the last mentioned craving, craving for non-becoming, the other two can be reckoned as sensuous craving, kaamatanhaa. The subco. gives more explanations. The five bases for craving, beginning with visible object, are objects for craving that is strong desire, this is kaamata.nhaa. Also all the dhammas of the three planes (of the sensuous planes, the ruupa-brahma planes and the aruupa-brahmaplanes) are kaama, meaning, objects of sensedesire (kaamaniiya). All craving without wrong view can be reckoned as kaamata.nhaa. All kinds of ta.nhaa are permeated (pariyaaditvaa) by sensuous craving, and thus also clinging to birth in ruupa-brahmaplanes and aruupa-brahmaplanes are deduced (niharitvaa) from that. ---------------------- sutta: Three more kinds of craving: sensual craving; craving for [the World of] Sense-Desires, for [the World of] Form; craving for the Formless [World].(Aparaapi tisso ta.nhaa - kaamata.nhaa, ruupata.nhaa, aruupata.nhaa.) Puna kaamata.nhaadiisu pa~ncakaamagu.niko raago kaamata.nhaa. Ruupaaruupabhavesu chandaraago itaraa dve ta.nhaa. ------- sutta: 'Three more kinds of craving: for [the World of Form], for the Formless [World], for cessation Aparaapi tisso ta.nhaa - ruupata.nhaa, aruupata.nhaa, nirodhata.nhaa. -------- N: The Co explains that craving for cessation is here: desire accompanied by the wrong view of annihilation. Co: Ruupata.nhaadiisu ruupabhave chandaraago ruupata.nhaa. Aruupabhave chandaraago aruupata.nhaa. Ucchedadi.t.thisahagato raago nirodhata.nhaa. ------ N: Conclusion: All the foregoing classifications of elements and of different kinds of craving have as objective to remind us of craving arising at the present moment. Craving has many kinds of objects and it arises time and again. All objects that can be experienced through the senses are enticing (rajaniiya), inviting to cling. We cling to visible object, sound and the other sense objects and also to dear people. Only the nine lokuttara dhammas, classified as a superior plane (paniita dhaatu), are not objects of clinging. Clinging is an element, dhaatu, that is empty of self, as we read in the Co. So long as we take it for self there will be no end to it, it will ever go stronger. When it arises and appears its true nature can be known by pa~n~naa. ---------- Nina. #91825 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries jonoabb Hi Howard > Howard: > Thank you for this sutta. It does seem self-contradictory, though, does > it not? ... > I find this to be a conundrum, and I just don't know what to make of > it. Do you, Tep? Do you, Scott? Anyone else? Is this sutta an amalgam pasted > together by folks other than the Buddha? What's up here? Any takers? > ----------------------------------------------- As I see it, there are 2 distinct parts to the answer to the question being posed in the sutta ("What is the faculty of mindfulness?") The passage beginning "There is the case where ..." describes the particular context being addressed by the Buddha in giving his answer. It might be read as "For the one who ...". The passage beginning "He remains focussed ..." is the actual answer to the question. So, to paraphrase, I read the answer as being: For the person who can recollect past lives, the faculty of mindfulness consists of being focussed on the 5 khandhas as the 5 khandhas". Something like that. Jon PS I haven't read ahead on this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating anything already said. "And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering and able to call to mind even things that were done and said long ago. He remains focused on the body in and of itself -ardent, alert, and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the mind in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves- ardent, alert, and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness." SN 48.10 Indriya-vibhanga Sutta #91826 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:07 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path visitorfromt... Hi KenH, You have some terminology cleansing job to do, Ken. > >T: Of course all sankhata dhammas arise by conditions. But I don't know what you mean by "free will". ---------------- >KH: I mean just what it means in ordinary usage. Free will is a conventional explanation for the conventional activities living beings engage in every day. T: That's what I want to hear you explain : what it means in ordinary usage, because there is no such term in both the Suttanta and Abhidhamma pitakas. ---------------------------- T: > FYI : These are some supporting conditions for a magga citta: chanda (as Iddhipada dhamma), intent (citta as Iddhipada dhamma), resolve (sankappa), and upholding intent so that a kusala dhamma arises and becomes developed through right effort. ---------------------------- >KH: Whether you know it or not, you are talking here about conditioned dhammas. They belong to the momentary, ultimately real, world. They are not part of the illusory world of people and free will. T: Didn't I mention "supporting conditions" above? But I never heard of "momentary, ultimately real, world", Ken. Where is that world NOW? -------------------- <. . .> T: I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? ---------------------------- >KH: The trouble here, Tep, is you refuse to consider the ultimately real world taught in the Abhidhamma. For as long as you refuse to consider that world you will be unable to understand conditioned dhammas. You will forever be asking, "But if [so-and-so] says there is no control how can he cross a street safely? Why doesn't he walk into trees, jump under a train . . . (etc., etc.)." T: I know you were thinking of Alex while writing all this. FYI I have no problem understanding the supporting conditions (paccaya, aahara) that the Buddha taught. I do have a real problem, however, with your invented & vague terminologies such as "momentary, ultimately real world". Where do you find this term in the Abhidhamma; in which of the 7 books? ------------------- T: > By the way, what do you think conditions right effort ? ------------------- KH: That's an easy one, it's in the suttas: Right understanding conditions right effort. T: Which suttas? Tep === #91827 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries visitorfromt... Hi Alex (and Howard), - You wrote: "Being mindful may mean that one remembers not to get carried with whatever nama-rupa is arising at the present moment." Not to get carried away with what is seen, heard, ... depends on establishment in satindriya or equivalently, the four frames of references. Tep === #91828 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:37 am Subject: Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape ... visitorfromt... Dear Nina (Sarah, Han, Alberto), - By comparing 'virtue' with 'escape' in the following two cases, I think I see their partnership in the practice for abandoning defilements. [Virtue. Patisambhidamagga, I, 264] 'Through renunciation in the case of zeal(chanda) for sensual-desires virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression.' 'Through contemplation of impermanence in the case of perception of permanence virtue is in the sense of its restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression.' [Escape. Patisambhidamagga, IV, 16] 'The five faculties in renunciation (nekkhamma) have escaped from zeal for sensual-desires.' 'The five faculties in the contemplation of impermanence have escaped from perception of permanence.' ............... Some people want to believe that understanding is all it takes to escape from all defilements. They even say that virtue is gained and perfected by understanding. Regards, Tep === #91829 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:03 am Subject: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Jon & all, Last March when we were back in Adelaide, Australia, I wrote about Jon's godmother, Albany who was such a joy to be with at the age of 96. I remember Nina appreciated the report about her(re-posted below). This morning Jon called me to tell me the sad (for us) news that he'd just heard that she'd passed away the other day. She'd just celebrated her 97th birthday when a couple of days later she had a massive stroke and didn't regain consciousness. Up til then she was still driving, living independently and all the rest I mentioned in my earlier report. Of course, we can rejoice in the fact that she suffered so little and was able to live like this until the end. We were also glad to have given her 'priority' on our brief visit to Adelaide and that we remembered to send her a birthday card. We never know when it's the last opportunity to help or give a little kindness. As it happens, I was listening to a recording today in which K.Sujin was referring to death as being like when we fall fast asleep. We lose everything. By having understanding, there is no fear, but when there's no understanding there's lots of fear. Actually, she stressed, we are losing everything in split seconds all the time, losing citta, (cetasikas and rupas), but there's a new one all the time. It's the same after death too -maybe better...maybe! She also stressed how dangerous clinging is. Seeing is very fast and then there are bhavanga cittas between processes. "In one's life there is only the memory of what is experienced while the object has completely gone. One lives in one's own thought, clinging to everything - concepts and realities. If there's no direct experiencing of the arising and falling away of realities - (it's) impossible to eradicate the idea of self or things which one keeps in one's mind from birth to death when there's no study, no understanding of realities. One lives blindly in one's own thoughts." I also liked this comment: "Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word." And this one too as a sobering reminder on the same track to those of us counting our lost dollars or baht at this time: "One does not like to lose money .....but when it's vipaka...but the actual vipaka must be the moment of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching only. It's not the idea of the baht [or dollar or shares] which goes down." Of course the same applies when we hear of the loss of a very dear friend -the actual vipaka are just the moments of seeing and so on. May we all develop understanding of the realities and reflect wisely at any time, 'just like now'. Metta, Sarah http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84448 >On Thursday afternoon, we took Jon's godmother, Albany, up into the hills for a scenic drive and afternoon tea. She had been engaged to Jon's uncle, but he'd died in the war and she's lived a wonderful single life, working hard for decades and still busy even now at the age of 96! She still does all her own housework (though has someone pop in once a month to help with heavy chores!!), still drives, goes out twice a week for mahjong (which she took up in her 70s, arranging for a teacher to show her and a group of friends how to play), out 2 or 3 times a week to play bridge. She still goes out to lunches, family functions and so on too, sometimes staying away for weekends. She's always cheerful and positive. Last year when she had an ulcerated leg and was home-bound for months, she was a great example of patience and continued to take an interest in others' problems. She eats anything, she says, and certainly enjoyed the apple strudel with our tea. Again, we never mention religions but I always learn from her simple, humble approach and attitude to life. She's seen all her close friends die and younger family members, but she just accepts this as part of life. For her 100th, one step at a time, she says, so no planning. In any case, she doesn't want a telegram from the Queen or any fuss! Oh, and she's just got a mobile phone because a month ago, her car broke down and she was stuck, eventually having to get to a house to call for assistance. Several hours later she got a lift home in the pick-up truck as she told us, again with great humour! ============= #91830 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah and Nina, Regarding 'Quote from recording': "...That is the moment of real studying - the characteristic of a reality - to be ruupa or to be naama by not naming it or by not thinking about it but by understanding that characteristic as hardness cannot be anything besides hardness itself. And that which experiences hardness is different. One at a time until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look whether this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality cannot experience anything at all.' We don't have to say out or speak in words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things..."...The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books." Scott: I'm enjoying the recorded discussions - thanks again, Sarah (Jon). In the above, when referring to 'awareness', I'd hazard that this might refer to 'sati'. If this is the case, the quote might be an attempt at describing the experience of sati's function - or perhaps the early or 'tender' 'process' of satipa.t.thaana. Do you see it this way? It can be difficult to describe experience - to find the words capable of designating an experience of anything. In the texts, taking 'sati' for example (as is being discussed elsewhere) one can read the words which define and describe sati by function, etc., but these words cannot substitute for experience - and sometimes, at least for me, fail to conjure up an equivalent recognition of something like it I might have experienced. What I like about the quote in particular is that it clarifies that the bad reputation given 'book learning' is both deserved and undeserved. It is undeserved if one misconstrues - and I haven't read anyone here who makes the following claim - that this is some form of practise that will lead someone anywhere. It is deserved because reading is no substitute for experience (but awareness can arise while reading but the focus wouldn't be on the content of the reading but on some aspect of experience - it would be on some reality arising during 'reading'). And, Nina, I'm glad too that Luke is settling in to the diabetes routine and can still play the game he loves. Sincerely, Scott. #91831 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Me: "Sati is 'recollection' (anussati) but it is not 'memory' - this function, as I understand it is the purview of 'sa~n~naa'." H: "I think that is a valid distinction. I view sati as a remembering, in the sense of 'keeping in mind,' to stay present. So, it is a monitoring of the mind, a not forgetting to stay present with what is arising 'right now' rather than getting lost in thought, imagination, excitement, or sloth & torpor. That staying present, free of the interlopers mentioned, as I see it, is critical for wisdom to arise." Scott: Yes, I think sati's function would very much be needed to assist pa~n~naa in its functions. The need to distinguish any one dhamma from any other dhamma - by characteristic, function and so on - is so important, and I don't mean the intellectual sort of distinction-making. In reading and study, this is, of course, only thinking and making sense of categorical and definitional distinctions. Where the rubber hits the road, this is carried out by these various dhammas with various characteristics and functions vis-a-vis the object of focus. So, yeah, sati seems to be a very clear sort of being with an object of experience 'now'. Since sa~n~naa is its 'own khandha', it differs from sati, but I'd guess that the two assist one another, performing different but interactive functions in considering any object. As I understand it, when sati is present, its very presence is the restraint spoken of in a consideration of siila. Since it is kusala, no akusala arises while sati is present. I think sati's function is in relation to an object, and so, I'm not sure that 'monitoring the mind' would be an accurate description of sati's function. As I suggest just above, sati's mere presence in the moment ensures that something like 'monitoring the mind' occurs - and this, to me, would be the natural restraint that comes simply by sati being present. I like, of course, that there is no person performing any act of 'monitoring the mind'. Sincerely, Scott. Sincerely, Scott. #91832 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kusala or akusala? sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, (Nina, Scott & all), --- On Wed, 22/10/08, alberto.spera wrote: >I haven't listened to that tape yet, but I understand how the notion of no me, no you, no Lodewijk can sound heartless, while the opposite would sound heartwarming, and also how the notion of no table and no chairs can sound silly, while the opposite would sound just as normal everyday experience. But by being the object of thinking I also understand that thougths are just the tips of icebergs, and that what makes them emerge is the unseen part under them, the dhammas. ... S: I think it's amazing that you appreciate this. Yes, the Dhamma really goes against the ways of the world. Another quote I heard today: "The most important thing is considering what one has heard." And later, the one I mentioned just now, elaborated on: "Anyone can hear, but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word. For example, when we talk about the reality which can experience an object there can be the moment of considering about hearing. There must be hearing because sound is heard and who hears the sound? There must be a reality which can experience sound so sound is heard. But where is it? It doesn't have shape and form, but it has its characteristic and function and it does not stay because as soon as it hears, it falls away. The other moment is not hearing, but it's thinking or seeing or feeling. So the faculty of experiencing an object is that characteristic - citta...... So there are four kinds of absolute realities - nobody, nothing in it - just the absolute realities - citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana." I'm really appreciating all your comments and reflections a lot, Alberto! Metta, Sarah p.s I expect by now you've read all the past messages on the cheating (vancaka) dhammas which Robert kindly pointed you to. If not, try 'Cheating' in U.P. ======== #91833 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kusala or akusala? sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, This one was brilliant as well, I thought:-). An example of what careful consideration of what we read and hear can lead to. Thank you for sharing your own summary of the common 'cheating' dhammas:-). Metta, Sarah --- On Tue, 21/10/08, alberto.spera wrote: >Hi, Akusala dhammas can be very hard to spot, especially in oneself, for instance I like to think that my appreciation of Dhamma is kusala, of course what else can it possibly be? Well, what about one of the 8 lobha-mula citta? The 8 lobha-mula (and also the two moha-mula), out of twelve akusala citta, can be very easily mistaken for kusala moments since they can have anything as their object, including the Dhamma. And even the 2 dosa-mula can be easily mistaken for kusala, for instance when one dislikes akusala, either one's own or others'. ====================== #91834 From: "alberto.spera" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:56 am Subject: Re: Kusala or akusala? alberto.spera Dear Sarah Thanks for your positive comments, I'm having problems with my internet connection (I'm sending this from a internet point), hopefully I'll start posting some more comments soon - I wouldn't like piling up to many standing orders :-) Alberto #91835 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:02 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi Scott Thanks for the 3 posts. To be honest, conditions just aren't there for me to read carefully and diligently online these days, for some reason. Could just be a matter of tired eyes. I'm plugging ahead re- reading "Cetasikas" and "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" in book form, so I think I'll just do that for awhile. So I'll drop it and let you guys carry on...you'll have no shortage of discussions to carry on with, no doubt. Catch you again at some point down the road.... metta, phil > I'm interested in the > discussion. I can follow with some more stuff from Sammohavinodanii > on sati I was reading at the soccer practise last night. Don't mind > my opinions. I don't read much but the suttas or the commentaries. > It's *my own* opinions I care least about - I just act like an > opinionated boor. (Yours are next in order, followed by TG's, and > then Herman's. Ha Ha.) #91836 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "Thank you for this sutta. It does seem self-contradictory, though, does it not? On the one hand there is said 'There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering and able to call to mind even things that were done and said long ago,' which is certainly not a matter of staying with what is arising right now. On the other hand, there is said 'He remains focused on the body in and of itself -ardent, alert, and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the mind in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves - ardent, alert, and mindful - putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world.' I find this to be a conundrum, and I just don't know what to make of it. Do you, Tep? Do you, Scott? Anyone else? Is this sutta an amalgam pasted together by folks other than the Buddha? What's up here? Any takers?" Scott: I gave another translation, which is: "And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of mindfulness? Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion, one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago. He dwells contemplating the body in the body...feelings in feelings...phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure with regard to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness." Katama~nca , bhikkhave, satindriya.m? Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasaavako satimaa hoti paramena satinepakkena samannaagato, cirakatampi cirabhaasitampi saritaa anussaritaa. So kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapaa sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m; vedanaasu…pe… citte…pe… dhammesu dhammaanupassaa viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m" ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, satindriya.m. Scott: I think the sutta is referring to the 'ariyasaavako' I think the confusion comes when one thinks only in terms of a person. I think that a wise consideration of 'ariyasaavako' would also include the intellectual distinction that this refers to the types of consciousness arising and falling away for such a 'person.' Don't you think that 'remembers what was done and said long ago' refers, perhaps, to an abhi~n~naa (say, 'pubbe-nivaasaanussati)? I don't know. (Opinions - not worth the electrons that bring them to you.) ;-) I think that this capacity is mentioned to describe the 'person' by way of attainments, but isn't meant to imply that while this sort of 'remembering and recollecting' is occurring, a contemplation of the body or whatever is also occurring. Sincerely, Scott. #91837 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More tales from Big Wave Bay sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Jon), Thank you so much for your encouragement to us all to share our experiences and reflect on Dhamma all the time! --- On Tue, 21/10/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >I thoroughly enjoyed your Dhamma conversation at Big Wave. In relation to your remark I quoted below I also thought of Jon's words to Howard so well expressed: ... S: Yes, I thought this was very well put as well. ... >How good he still can find time in Fiji. ... S: He's very busy, but working with friendly people. The last I heard (after one extension so far) is that he's coming back on the 6th Nov in time for our wedding anniversary on the 7th.... but it all depends on conditions. Meanwhile, one citta at a time, losing everything at each moment, in spite of all the dreams and remembered stories about Jon, wedding anniversary and Fiji!! Metta, Sarah p.s Best regards to Lodewijk as always. ============ #91838 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Wed, 22/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >S: Concepts are just concepts, regardless of the type of concept....there are concepts of realities, such as sounds, likes, dislikes. There are also concepts of what is unreal, such as trees and people, but while trees and people are unreal, they are clearly based on realities, on various namas and rupas which have been experienced. ============ ========= ========= ===== H:> It is not written on tablets somewhere what a God-given definition of 'real' is, Sarah. ... S: Not a "God-given definition" but a "Dhamma-given definition" is given throughout the Theravadan texts. The realities are only cittas, cetasikas, rupas (and nibbana where applicable). For example: SN 22:62 (BB transl): "Whatever form [ruupa]....feeling....perception...volitional formations...consciousness has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description 'is' applies to it, not the term 'was' or the term 'will be'." .... H:> It might, therefore, be useful, I think, to use terminology like "composites" or "mere aggregations" when speaking of such things as trees and people. ... S: CMA, ch VIII, #30 "Concept as What is Made Known" "How? There are such terms as 'land', 'mountain,' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as 'house,' 'chariot,' 'cart,' and the like, so named on account of the mode of formation of materials; such terms as 'person,' 'individual,' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates;..... "All such different things, though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. "They are called concepts (pa~n~natti) because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known." Guide to #30 " 'Concept as what is made known' is the same as meaning-concept (atthapa~n~natti)... "Land, mountain, etc., are called in Pali 'sa.nthaanapa~n~natti, formal concepts, since they correspond to the form or configuration of things. "House, chariot, village, etc., are called 'samuuhapa~n~natti, collective concepts, since they correspond to a collection or group of things....." .... S: All concepts. .... H: >Also, there is a legitimate sense in which rupas, which DO change according to the commentaries, are also "unreal," ... S: Yes, all conditioned dhammas (realities), including rupas, are impermanent. I don't know pf any sense in which they are 'unreal'. ... H:> and namas, which include operations, also are not static, and not any of conditioned phenomena have independent status. .... S: Again namas are impermanent and conditioned. Seeing arises momentarily, dependent on many conditions, peforms its function and falls away. ... H:> The relevant part of the dictionary entry for 'real' ... S: With respect, I don't see what relevance the common conventional dictionary usage of 'real' has here. According to this, all the concepts given above would be realities and this is correct in the worldly sense. ... H:> There are, however, no individual phenomena that are persons. SUCH truly do NOT exist. They are unreal and only imagined. ... S: Yes, let's end here on a note of full agreement:-) Perhaps you could use these two lines as your signature sign-off for a while to help spread the word!! Metta, Sarah ========= #91839 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:58 am Subject: Re: Difference of opinion sarahprocter... Dear Han, I meant to thank you ages ago for kindly explaining to me about the two groups of Sayadaws and their different undrstandings in pre-war Burma which led to "useless debates". It was interesting and I enjoyed your summary and comments. Some of the traditions you mentioned reminded me of Thai traditions, such as the asking for forgiveness to the Triple Gem. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: H:> I think the idea was that one group attached more emphasis on the actions through bodily, verbal and mental actvities in accumulating kusala or akusala. The other group attached more emphasis on the sense doors and guarding the sense doors so that it would not lead to bodily, verbal and mental unwholesome activities. That was how I understood very roughly. Of course, there must be more important details which I could not grasp at that young age. ... S: Either way, it all comes back to the development of understanding and awareness, I'm sure. ... > But the details are not that important in conveying my message. The important point is for whatever topic, or for whatever details, if there is a strong difference between the two groups and if the two groups are stubbornly sticking to their own ideas, there can be no agreement and it will only lead to endless debates getting nowhere. ... S: Yes, I agree. Metta, Sarah ======= #91840 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Herman), Just back on the 'realities' theme. You quoted from the a couple of suttas in a message to Herman (#90364) and wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > 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) > > > > 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." > > (From the Bahiya Sutta) > _______________________ ... S: I think these are good examples of the suttas pointing to realities as opposed to concepts. As soon as there is 'ma~n~nati' or 'construing' with attachment, conceit and wrong view, there is no understanding of 'the seen', 'the heard' and so on, in other words, of the realities. Metta, Sarah ======== #91841 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - Much of what you write in the following I agree with. The few places where I question your perspective I will mention in context. In a message dated 10/24/2008 7:30:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Me: "Sati is 'recollection' (anussati) but it is not 'memory' - this function, as I understand it is the purview of 'sa~n~naa'." H: "I think that is a valid distinction. I view sati as a remembering, in the sense of 'keeping in mind,' to stay present. So, it is a monitoring of the mind, a not forgetting to stay present with what is arising 'right now' rather than getting lost in thought, imagination, excitement, or sloth & torpor. That staying present, free of the interlopers mentioned, as I see it, is critical for wisdom to arise." Scott: Yes, I think sati's function would very much be needed to assist pa~n~naa in its functions. The need to distinguish any one dhamma from any other dhamma - by characteristic, function and so on - is so important, and I don't mean the intellectual sort of distinction-making. In reading and study, this is, of course, only thinking and making sense of categorical and definitional distinctions. Where the rubber hits the road, this is carried out by these various dhammas with various characteristics and functions vis-a-vis the object of focus. So, yeah, sati seems to be a very clear sort of being with an object of experience 'now'. Since sa~n~naa is its 'own khandha', ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a different nama. ------------------------------------------- it differs from sati, but I'd guess that the two assist one another, performing different but interactive functions in considering any object. As I understand it, when sati is present, its very presence is the restraint spoken of in a consideration of siila. Since it is kusala, no akusala arises while sati is present. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I suspect you would say the same of pa~n~na. I cannot buy this, for it implies that there cannot be presence of mind and insight into anger, for example, at the very time that anger passes across the mental landscape. That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly. But, from my perspective, it is exactly the shining of the light of mindfulness and wisdom into a dark corner that makes the rats that are hidden in the darkness scurry away. --------------------------------------------- I think sati's function is in relation to an object, and so, I'm not sure that 'monitoring the mind' would be an accurate description of sati's function. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that mental monitoring is exactly what it does, including distinguishing kusala from akusala. --------------------------------------------- As I suggest just above, sati's mere presence in the moment ensures that something like 'monitoring the mind' occurs - and this, to me, would be the natural restraint that comes simply by sati being present. I like, of course, that there is no person performing any act of 'monitoring the mind'. Sincerely, Scott. /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #91842 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi Scott - Is the alternative translation you give in the following yours or that of some Pali expert? Whosoever's translation it may be, if it is correct, it does, I agree, suggest the possibility of referring to one who is at a stage at which s/he can remember past lives and detailing the mindful contemplation of phenomena by that person. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/24/2008 8:10:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "Thank you for this sutta. It does seem self-contradictory, though, does it not? On the one hand there is said 'There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering and able to call to mind even things that were done and said long ago,' which is certainly not a matter of staying with what is arising right now. On the other hand, there is said 'He remains focused on the body in and of itself -ardent, alert, and mindful- putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the mind in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves - ardent, alert, and mindful - putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world.' I find this to be a conundrum, and I just don't know what to make of it. Do you, Tep? Do you, Scott? Anyone else? Is this sutta an amalgam pasted together by folks other than the Buddha? What's up here? Any takers?" Scott: I gave another translation, which is: "And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of mindfulness? Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion, one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago. He dwells contemplating the body in the body...feelings in feelings...phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure with regard to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness." Katama~nca , bhikkhave, satindriya.m? Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasaavako satimaa hoti paramena satinepakkena samannaagato, cirakatampi cirabhaasitampi saritaa anussaritaa. So kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapaa sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m; vedanaasu…pe… citte…pe… dhammesu dhammaanupassaa viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m" ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, satindriya.m. Scott: I think the sutta is referring to the 'ariyasaavako' I think the confusion comes when one thinks only in terms of a person. I think that a wise consideration of 'ariyasaavako' would also include the intellectual distinction that this refers to the types of consciousness arising and falling away for such a 'person.' Don't you think that 'remembers what was done and said long ago' refers, perhaps, to an abhi~n~naa (say, 'pubbe-nivaasaanussati)? I don't know. (Opinions - not worth the electrons that bring them to you.) ;-) I think that this capacity is mentioned to describe the 'person' by way of attainments, but isn't meant to imply that while this sort of 'remembering and recollecting' is occurring, a contemplation of the body or whatever is also occurring. Sincerely, Scott. #91843 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/24/2008 8:55:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Wed, 22/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >S: Concepts are just concepts, regardless of the type of concept....there are concepts of realities, such as sounds, likes, dislikes. There are also concepts of what is unreal, such as trees and people, but while trees and people are unreal, they are clearly based on realities, on various namas and rupas which have been experienced. ============ ========= ========= ===== H:> It is not written on tablets somewhere what a God-given definition of 'real' is, Sarah. ... S: Not a "God-given definition" but a "Dhamma-given definition" is given throughout the Theravadan texts. The realities are only cittas, cetasikas, rupas (and nibbana where applicable). For example: SN 22:62 (BB transl): "Whatever form [ruupa]....feeling....perception...volitional formations...consciousness has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description 'is' applies to it, not the term 'was' or the term 'will be'." --------------------------------------------- Howard: For one thing, this material says nothing of "real". The Uraga Sutta, does though, saying "All this is unreal." But more to then point, I didn't speak of a list of things, that are considered real, but a definition of 'real', and specification of what the term means. And, for sure, there is no single fixed meaning for that term. ------------------------------------------- .... H:> It might, therefore, be useful, I think, to use terminology like "composites" or "mere aggregations" when speaking of such things as trees and people. ... S: CMA, ch VIII, #30 "Concept as What is Made Known" "How? There are such terms as 'land', 'mountain,' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as 'house,' 'chariot,' 'cart,' and the like, so named on account of the mode of formation of materials; such terms as 'person,' 'individual,' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates;..... "All such different things, though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. "They are called concepts (pa~n~natti) because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known." --------------------------------------------- Howard: Concepts are one thing, aggregations of phenomena are another. The idea of someone's body is not the same as the collection of phenomena that are the basis for that idea. The Tipitaka, for example, is not unreal. If you think it is, then what the heck have you been talking about! ----------------------------------------- Guide to #30 " 'Concept as what is made known' is the same as meaning-concept (atthapa~n~natti)... "Land, mountain, etc., are called in Pali 'sa.nthaanapa~n~natti, formal concepts, since they correspond to the form or configuration of things. "House, chariot, village, etc., are called 'samuuhapa~n~natti, collective concepts, since they correspond to a collection or group of things....." .... S: All concepts. ------------------------------------------ Howard: A chariot is an integrated collection of rupas that act in concert to function in a certain manner. Aside from the rupas properly interconnected, there is no chariot. When the rupas are there and appropriately configured, that is a real basis for the idea of "the chariot". As soon as the collection is dismantled, though, that is no longer so. Those are the facts, and merely voicing "unreal" is an oversimplification that hides the reality of the situation. -------------------------------------- .... H: >Also, there is a legitimate sense in which rupas, which DO change according to the commentaries, are also "unreal," ... S: Yes, all conditioned dhammas (realities), including rupas, are impermanent. I don't know pf any sense in which they are 'unreal'. -------------------------------------- Howard: The sense is that of being changing, ungraspable and not separate realities. -------------------------------------- ... H:> and namas, which include operations, also are not static, and not any of conditioned phenomena have independent status. .... S: Again namas are impermanent and conditioned. Seeing arises momentarily, dependent on many conditions, peforms its function and falls away. ... H:> The relevant part of the dictionary entry for 'real' ... S: With respect, I don't see what relevance the common conventional dictionary usage of 'real' has here. According to this, all the concepts given above would be realities and this is correct in the worldly sense. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Using a word without meaning is ... meaningless. ------------------------------------------ ... H:> There are, however, no individual phenomena that are persons. SUCH truly do NOT exist. They are unreal and only imagined. ... S: Yes, let's end here on a note of full agreement:-) Perhaps you could use these two lines as your signature sign-off for a while to help spread the word!! Metta, Sarah ============================== With metta, Howard #91844 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - In a message dated 10/24/2008 9:28:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I suspect you would say the same of pa~n~na. I cannot buy this, for it implies that there cannot be presence of mind and insight into anger, for example, at the very time that anger passes across the mental landscape. That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly. But, from my perspective, it is exactly the shining of the light of mindfulness and wisdom into a dark corner that makes the rats that are hidden in the darkness scurry away. ======================== Just one further clarification of this last point of mine: For the gloom of ignorance and craving to be dispelled by mindfulness and wisdom, that gloom must be present - not already gone. With metta, Howard #91845 From: "Atula Siriwardane" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Can we practice Awareness at home. asiri57 One can practice it at home if one practices according to "Maha Satipatthana Sutta" which Buddha says as 'The one and only way to Purify the being". Atula Siriwardane... #91846 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/24/2008 7:16:16 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: I think these are good examples of the suttas pointing to realities as opposed to concepts. As soon as there is 'ma~n~nati' or 'construing' with attachment, conceit and wrong view, there is no understanding of 'the seen', 'the heard' and so on, in other words, of the realities. Metta, Sarah ............................................ TG: I think this interpretation is all construed up. But then my construing days are over I guess. ;-) #91847 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/24/2008 11:59:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: In a message dated 10/24/2008 7:16:16 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: I think these are good examples of the suttas pointing to realities as opposed to concepts. As soon as there is 'ma~n~nati' or 'construing' with attachment, conceit and wrong view, there is no understanding of 'the seen', 'the heard' and so on, in other words, of the realities. Metta, Sarah ............................................ TG: I think this interpretation is all construed up. But then my construing days are over I guess. ;-) --------------------------------------------- Well, geez! How old ARE you, TG? ;-)) ========================= With metta, Howard #91848 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' jonoabb Hi Sarah Thanks for posting this note and especially the reminders about how everything falls away on a moment to moment basis anyway (not easy to grasp, but useful to reflect upon). I didn't get around to calling Albany on her birthday as I'd planned to, due to not checking my diary here in Fiji as regularly as I do in Hong Kong. There was some regret about that oversight when I received the news, but that is probably just akusala based on the expectations we set for ourselves! Likewise the fact that the funeral took place before I had heard about her passing away. Thanks again for the note. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Nina, Jon & all, > > Last March when we were back in Adelaide, Australia, I wrote about Jon's godmother, Albany who was such a joy to be with at the age of 96. I remember Nina appreciated the report about her(re-posted below). > > This morning Jon called me to tell me the sad (for us) news that he'd just heard that she'd passed away the other day. She'd just celebrated her 97th birthday when a couple of days later she had a massive stroke and didn't regain consciousness. Up til then she was still driving, living independently and all the rest I mentioned in my earlier report. Of course, we can rejoice in the fact that she suffered so little and was able to live like this until the end. We were also glad to have given her 'priority' on our brief visit to Adelaide and that we remembered to send her a birthday card. We never know when it's the last opportunity to help or give a little kindness. #91849 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Is the alternative translation you give in the following yours or that of some Pali expert?" Scott: Bh. Bodhi, as I noted in the original post. Sincerely, Scott. #91850 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "I suspect you would say the same of pa~n~na. I cannot buy this, for it implies that there cannot be presence of mind and insight into anger, for example, at the very time that anger passes across the mental landscape. That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly. But, from my perspective, it is exactly the shining of the light of mindfulness and wisdom into a dark corner that makes the rats that are hidden in the darkness scurry away. For the gloom of ignorance and craving to be dispelled by mindfulness and wisdom, that gloom must be present - not already gone." Scott: The view presented above, albeit with such lovely prose, does not, as you know, accord with the Abhidhamma. Sati arises with kusala citta. Pa~n~naa arises with kusala citta. Dosa arises with akusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala arising simultaneously, since only once citta arises at a time, only to fall away immediately. No, one has to look to the citta-viithi in order see when sati and pa~n~naa have dosa as object. Howard: "I think that mental monitoring is exactly what it does, including distinguishing kusala from akusala." Scott: How does this accord with the above noted view, which implies that kusala and akusala can coexist at the same moment of consciousness. This view would necessitate even more 'duality' than one could shake a couple of sticks at. Sincerely, Scott. #91851 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Regarding: Ph: "Thanks for the 3 posts. To be honest, conditions just aren't there for me to read carefully and diligently online these days, for some reason. Could just be a matter of tired eyes. I'm plugging ahead re-reading 'Cetasikas' and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' in book form, so I think I'll just do that for awhile. So I'll drop it and let you guys carry on...you'll have no shortage of discussions to carry on with, no doubt. Catch you again at some point down the road...." Scott: Okay. Maybe catch you later on Skype. Sincerely, Scott. #91852 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. .. Two Errors Found ... visitorfromt... Dear Nina and All, - I found two errors in your presentation, Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > .... > > Mindfulness of breathing is a subject of samatha and it is also > included in �mindfulness of the body� which is one of the �four > applications of mindfulness�. T: A careful review of MN 118, Anapanassati Sutta should be clear why it is incorrect to say that anapanasati is a subject of samatha AND it is one of the four applications of mindfulness. Mindfulness of breathing is BOTH samatha and vipassana. There are four tetrads in the Anapanassati Sutta. Only the first tetrad is included in mindfulness of the body. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html Tep === #91853 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/24/2008 8:16:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Is the alternative translation you give in the following yours or that of some Pali expert?" Scott: Bh. Bodhi, as I noted in the original post. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, I missed that. Thank you! -------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ======================== With metta, Howard #91854 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/24/2008 8:35:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "I suspect you would say the same of pa~n~na. I cannot buy this, for it implies that there cannot be presence of mind and insight into anger, for example, at the very time that anger passes across the mental landscape. That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly. But, from my perspective, it is exactly the shining of the light of mindfulness and wisdom into a dark corner that makes the rats that are hidden in the darkness scurry away. For the gloom of ignorance and craving to be dispelled by mindfulness and wisdom, that gloom must be present - not already gone." Scott: The view presented above, albeit with such lovely prose, does not, as you know, accord with the Abhidhamma. Sati arises with kusala citta. Pa~n~naa arises with kusala citta. Dosa arises with akusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala arising simultaneously, since only once citta arises at a time, only to fall away immediately. No, one has to look to the citta-viithi in order see when sati and pa~n~naa have dosa as object. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, if that view is at odds with the Abhidhamma, so be it. It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: "I think that mental monitoring is exactly what it does, including distinguishing kusala from akusala." Scott: How does this accord with the above noted view, which implies that kusala and akusala can coexist at the same moment of consciousness. This view would necessitate even more 'duality' than one could shake a couple of sticks at. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That doesn't frighten me in the slightest. The word 'duality' holds no terror for me. It's a word. Moreover, holding an opinion that might turn out to be untrue doesn't bother me either, because I recognize opinions as just that - opinions. --------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================== With metta, Howard #91855 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen..." Scott: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine. Of course, resorting to experience is a rather unassailable argument. ;-) The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion? Sincerely, Scott. P.S. This might appear twice since I sent it quite awhile ago and haven't seen it. Sorry. #91856 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:58 pm Subject: Friendship is Greatest: Mettaa!!! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Buddha's Speech on Friendliness: What should the clever one advantageously do: To attain This State called Peace, is this: He should be intelligent, straight, honest, Humble, gentle and never proud, Contented, and easy to support, Not busy, careful, and silenced… In abilities & senses, cautious, & modest, Not flattering families nor be demanding. He should not do even a minor trifle at all, That other wise men might criticize. Then he should think: May all beings be joyous and safe! Let every creature's mind rejoice. Whatever breathing beings there are, No matter whether feeble or firm, With none excepted, whether long; Tall, big, medium, short or small; Whether seen or unseen, visible or not; Whether living far or near, here or there; Whether existing or just about to become; Let every living being's mind be jubilant!!! Let none kill or another one undo, Nor harm anyone anywhere at all... Let none wish another any ill, neither from provocation nor from revenge. Thus, as a mother with her own life Might guard her son, her only child, thus Should he maintain an infinite friendliness; for every living being, in sympathy for this entire universe, unlimited, endless & vast! Above, below, and all around, unimpeded, without any hatred, without any enemies! Whether standing, walking, seated or lying down while slumbering, he should always maintain such Awareness of gentle kindness... This is the Divine Abiding here, they say. He that do not traffic with various views, Perfected in seeing what is right & wrong, Purged of lust for sense-pleasures, he will surely not come back here to any womb... Source: Minor Readings and the Illustrator http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130231 Have a nice & friendly day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #91857 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------------- <. . .> H: > Now, when there is metta, Ken, can pa~n~na be present? -------------------- The panna that that knows kusala from akusala can be present in a moment of metta. The panna that directly knows nama or rupa can't, of course. As for the pariyatti panna that knows 'a concept is only a concept' I would say not. I am sure pariyatti-panna can experience the concept of a living being. But, according to my understanding, such a moment of knowing would not be called metta. (Even though it had the same cetasikas as a moment of metta.) -------------------------------- H: > I must say, though, that as I see it, one experiences metta only when thinking about (or conceptualizing) a person, and any sati that is there at that time is a staying present with what is actually happening at that time, namely the nama that is the thinking-about-a- person. I take sati to be a mind-monitoring operation pertaining to mental functions (i.e., namas) and not mental projections. When there is metta towards a person, no person is there - there is just thinking that is going on. Persons don't occur in mind streams. They are complex aggregations of phenomena that are known about by thinking, but they are not individual phenomena, and they are not the objects of sati. In that regard, look at what the Buddha says about the foundations of mindfulness in the Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta (SN 47.40): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the path of practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak. "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself " ardent, alert, & mindful " putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves " ardent, alert, & mindful " putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. " This is called the frames of reference. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note that mindfulness of persons is NOT mentioned. ---------------------------------------------- No, but that is because the Buddha is talking here about samma sati (when it occurs in satipatthana). At ordinary kusala moments there is ordinary sati, which is the same cetasika but without the kilesa- weakening powers of samma sati. ------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > However, in all cases they perform the same function (of experiencing their arammana with non-forgetfulness of kusala). Howard: > What is that non-forgetfulness? What is not being forgotten? That requires a genuine answer, it seem to me. --------------------------------------------- I think you are saying sati's non-forgetfulness of kusala will prevent it from experiencing the present arammana. But remembering to keep your hat on doesn't prevent you from experiencing a walk in the park, does it? :-) Ken H #91858 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:10 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path kenhowardau Hi Tep, ------- T: > You have some terminology cleansing job to do, Ken. > >T: Of course all sankhata dhammas arise by conditions. But I don't know what you mean by "free will". >KH: I mean just what it means in ordinary usage. Free will is a conventional explanation for the conventional activities living beings engage in every day. T: That's what I want to hear you explain : what it means in ordinary usage, because there is no such term in both the Suttanta and Abhidhamma pitakas. --------- Anatta is the term found the Tipitaka that tells us there is no free will. As I tried to explain before, free will is something that belongs in the illusory world of atta. ---------------- <. . .> T: > But I never heard of "momentary, ultimately real, world", Ken. Where is that world NOW? -------------------- Consult any of the suttas in which the question "The world Lord; what is meant by the world?" is asked. ---------------- <. . .> T: > I know you were thinking of Alex while writing all this. FYI I have no problem understanding the supporting conditions (paccaya, aahara) that the Buddha taught. ----------------- Your question was: > > I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? > > How is that any different from Alex's questions? ------------------- T: > I do have a real problem, however, with your invented & vague terminologies such as "momentary, ultimately real world". Where do you find this term in the Abhidhamma; in which of the 7 books? ------------------- I think you are inventing difficulties. Apart from the Loka suttas, surely you agree the Dhamma refers constantly to fleeting namas and rupas appearing in any of the six worlds? -------------------------------- T: > > >By the way, what do you think conditions right effort ? KH: > > That's an easy one, it's in the suttas: Right understanding conditions right effort. T: >Which suttas? --------------------------------- The Mahacattartka Sutta for one: "Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components is called right concentration. As to this, right understanding comes first . . ." (end quote) If the suttas aren't clear enough the Abhidhamma explains how right understanding comes first and is the forerunner of the path factors. But surely, Tep, you can see for yourself how right effort is dependent on right understanding? How can a person be expected to exert right effort if he doesn't understand what right effort is? Ken H #91859 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi Scott - In a message dated 10/24/2008 11:07:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen..." Scott: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine. Of course, resorting to experience is a rather unassailable argument. ;-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-) ----------------------------------------- The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I imagine that you understand me correctly. Wisdom is like a light that dispells the darkness. This seems clear to me. I really cannot clarify this. As for ready primary-source references, I'm not very good at that. I've read a great deal of the Sutta Pitaka, and that is certainly my overall understanding. It certainly is the understanding of Nyanaponika Thera, as expressed in his work, Vision of Mindfulness. Of course, I could be wrong about wisdom dispelling akusala states. I have no doubt that I'm wrong about many things. (Hey, maybe that itself is one of them! LOLOL!) But as for mindfulness of a present unwholesome factor being possible, which was the original issue, the Satipatthana Sutta does include the following two items that seems to indicate being aware of exactly what's going on at the current moment, whether wholesome or not: "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion. "When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released. and "And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves? [1] "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.) ------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. P.S. This might appear twice since I sent it quite awhile ago and haven't seen it. Sorry. ------------------------------------------- Howard: This is the first I've seen of it, Scott. Thank you for writing. ======================= With metta, Howard #91860 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - In a message dated 10/24/2008 11:07:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion? =========================== I have found the following from the Milindapanha, which, though not a primary source, seems at least to show that I didn't come up with this "dispelling business" from whole cloth: II.1.14: Characteristic of Wisdom {Miln 39} (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/miln/miln.2x.kell.html#toc) The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, what is the distinguishing characteristic of wisdom?" "Previously, your majesty, I said 'severing is the distinguishing characteristic of wisdom,' and now furthermore illuminating is the distinguishing characteristic of wisdom." "How, venerable sir, is illuminating the distinguishing characteristic of wisdom?" "Wisdom arising, your majesty, dispels the darkness of ignorance, produces the illumination of insight, brings forth the light of knowledge, and makes manifest the noble truths; and further, the spiritual practitioner sees with complete understanding impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and corelessness." "Give me an analogy." "Just as, your majesty, a person might bring a lamp into a dark house, and with the lamp lit dispel the darkness, produce illumination, show the light, and make manifest forms, so too, your majesty, wisdom arising dispels the darkness of ignorance, produces the illumination of insight, brings forth the light of knowledge, and makes manifest the noble truths; and further, the spiritual practitioner sees with complete understanding impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and corelessness." "You are clever, venerable Nagasena." With metta, Howard #91861 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path visitorfromt... Hi KenH, - I am glad to discuss the fourth noble truth with you. It is kusala; attempting to win a silly debate is not. >KH: Anatta is the term found the Tipitaka that tells us there is no free will. As I tried to explain before, free will is something that belongs in the illusory world of atta. T: It is your right to think and explain whatever, but it is not what the Buddha or the arahants explained. Use the Suttanta and Abhidhamma pitakas to support your answer, please. Did they explain what "free will" was and give its meaning in regard to 'anatta' ? ................... >KH: Consult any of the suttas in which the question "The world Lord; what is meant by the world?" is asked. T: Since I never heard of, and never found "momentary, ultimately real, world" in the Tipitaka, there is no way I can relate "The world Lord; what is meant by the world?" to that unheard, unknown "momentary, ultimately real, world", Ken. Help me to understand you, please. But feel free to drop the issue if you are unable to write clearly. .................. T: You put Alex's words in my mouth when you said, "You will forever be asking, 'But if [so-and-so] says there is no control how can he cross a street safely? Why doesn't he walk into trees, jump under a train . . . (etc., etc.).' ". >KH: Your question was: > > I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? > > >How is that any different from Alex's questions? T: They are very different. I did not talk about controlling actions like Alex did; I was asking you to tell me if you thought "explaining something" was not doing a verbal action. This is critical to show that 'doing' is an 'action', a kamma. Cetana is kamma. .................. T: Thank you very much (really -- no sarcasm) for giving a straightforward reply to my simple question "Which suttas?", concerning your assertion : "Right understanding conditions right effort." >KH: The Mahacattartka Sutta for one: "Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components is called right concentration. As to this, right understanding comes first . . ." (end quote) >If the suttas aren't clear enough the Abhidhamma explains how right understanding comes first and is the forerunner of the path factors. T: The sutta is clear, but you explanation based on it is not clear. How could right understanding, a path factor, come first without an effort to abandon wrong view and develop right view from the beginning? The wrong view is abandoned by means of effort and mindfulness that turn into right effort and right mindfulness when right view arises from wrong view. The three magga factors work together on the path. Indeed the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta states : "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities " right view, right effort, & right mindfulness " run & circle around right view." The last sentence means the three mundane magga dhammas then develop the right view further to become supramundane right view. It is the supramundane right view that is same as right understanding. ................... >KH: But surely, Tep, you can see for yourself how right effort is dependent on right understanding? How can a person be expected to exert right effort if he doesn't understand what right effort is? T: You can understand what right effort means (definition), according to the Blessed One, by studying the suttas. That understanding is NOT right understanding or right view yet. Right effort arises when you "try to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view" as explained by the sutta quote above. Thus at this stage of development right effort helps turning wrong view into right view because of the action to abandon wrong view(akusala) and develop (mundane) right view which is kusala. Tep === #91862 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...Wisdom is like a light that dispells the darkness. This seems clear to me..." Scott: Yes, and the Milindapanha quote is clear (thanks). The simile makes sense. However, a simile describes a function but doesn't go into the details. H: "I could be wrong about wisdom dispelling akusala states..." Scott: I'm not suggesting that this is incorrect, but rather that there are subtle (or not so subtle) differences between our two views. When kusala is present, akusala is not, as I see it. I think you are saying as much, but I'm not sure as to whether we are saying the same things, given what I recall about your viewpoint. I'm considering this particular statement: H: "...That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly..." Scott: The alternative, as I've mentioned, is that sati and pa~n~naa can be present when dosa is present. Here we differ. H: "But as for mindfulness of a present unwholesome factor being possible, which was the original issue, the Satipatthana Sutta does include the following two items that seems to indicate being aware of exactly what's going on at the current moment, whether wholesome or not: "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself (cittaanupassii viharati)? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion (citta.m saraaga.m), discerns (pajaanaati) that the mind has passion . When the mind is without passion (viitaraaga.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion (viitadosa.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion (viitadosa.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion (samoha.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion (viitamoha.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without delusion..." Scott: This is 'cittaanupassanaa.' A couple of things. Seeing that 'pajaanaati' is used for 'discerns', the passage refers to the function of pa~n~naa, not sati, as far as I understand. And secondly, 'citta' is used for 'mind'. This suggests that a moment of consciousness is being referred to (as opposed to 'vi~n~naa.na' or 'mana' which, while synonymous, have different senses depending on context), one with a given root mental factor as indicated (raaga, dosa, moha). And these three are cetasika which, as the context suggests, arise conascent with citta in any of these given moments of consciousness. The passage does not point to any of the details, neither saying that sati or pa~n~naa function at the exact moment there is, say, dosa or at some other point in a sequence in relation to dosa. How do you propose to describe the way in which sati performs its function? I read you to see these processes in a global way, occurring without boundary and with a simultaneity. The view seems amorphous. I know we 'see' it differently (this is di.t.thi). Sincerely, Scott. #91863 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' nilovg Dear Sarah and Jon, my sympathy with the loss of Albany. I remember your post about her before. She must have been remarkable. I appreciated your reflections about losing everything. While reflecting on this, I noticed that I was thinking of myself losing everything, and realised that this was not right. As you quoted, <"Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word."> Op 24-okt-2008, om 13:03 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > And this one too as a sobering reminder on the same track to those > of us counting our lost dollars or baht at this time: > > "One does not like to lose money .....but when it's vipaka...but > the actual vipaka must be the moment of seeing, hearing, smelling, > tasting or touching only. It's not the idea of the baht [or dollar > or shares] which goes down." ------- N. This reminded me about a Survey quote I gave some time ago: > own really are. The moments we do not see them we can merely think > about them, but we believe that we own many things. However, of > what use can these things be to us during the moments we do not see > or touch them? When the characteristics of paramattha dhammas have > been understood as they are: not a being, person or self, it will > be realised that paramattha dhammas are the same for all people, > and that in that respect all people are equal. When seeing- > consciousness arises, it sees what appears and then it falls away. > The seeing-consciousness and what appears to seeing, visible > object, do not belong to anybody. Therefore, we should not take > anything for I or mine. > > ------------ > S:Of course the same applies when we hear of the loss of a very > dear friend -the actual vipaka are just the moments of seeing and > so on. > > May we all develop understanding of the realities and reflect > wisely at any time, 'just like now'. -------- N: The 'just like now' is very meaningful in the light of a loss of a dear person. As we discussed after Charupan passed away. There is birth and death of citta at every moment, and the Tiika of the now upcoming Visuddhimagga reminds us of momentary death. ------- Nina. #91864 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. .. Two Errors Found ... nilovg Dear Tep, Op 25-okt-2008, om 3:41 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > Mindfulness of breathing is a subject of samatha and it is also > > included in �mindfulness of the body� which is one of the > �four > > applications of mindfulness�. > > T: A careful review of MN 118, Anapanassati Sutta should be clear why > it is incorrect to say that anapanasati is a subject of samatha AND > it is one of the four applications of mindfulness. > > Mindfulness of breathing is BOTH samatha and vipassana. There are > four tetrads in the Anapanassati Sutta. Only the first tetrad is > included in mindfulness of the body. ------- N: Mindfulness of breathing can be a subject of samatha and it can also be a subject of vipassana, we agree about that. When included in the first application of mindfulness vipassana is the aim. We read in the Commentary that jhaana is attained with this subject, and even the jhaanacitta should be object of awareness and right understanding and as such it is the object of vipassana. The Visuddhimagga describes the tetrads, and true, the second one is about feeling. All the same, anapanasati is mentioned under mindfulness of the body. This is meant to remind us that whatever dhamma appears can be object of vipassanaa. It is a method of teaching to explain the four applications of mindfulness, it is not a rigid classification. ****** Nina. #91865 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/25/2008 9:56:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...Wisdom is like a light that dispells the darkness. This seems clear to me..." Scott: Yes, and the Milindapanha quote is clear (thanks). The simile makes sense. However, a simile describes a function but doesn't go into the details. H: "I could be wrong about wisdom dispelling akusala states..." Scott: I'm not suggesting that this is incorrect, but rather that there are subtle (or not so subtle) differences between our two views. When kusala is present, akusala is not, as I see it. I think you are saying as much, but I'm not sure as to whether we are saying the same things, given what I recall about your viewpoint. I'm considering this particular statement: H: "...That means that sati and pa~n~na can observe anger and other harmful traits and activities only by memory trace and not directly..." Scott: The alternative, as I've mentioned, is that sati and pa~n~naa can be present when dosa is present. Here we differ. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I don't think they can *continue* to coexist, for the moment the akusala trait is seen with mindfulness and wisdom, it disappears. That is the dispelling I speak of. Perhaps the difference in our perspectives is that you accept a frame by frame view, whereas I do not. ------------------------------------------ H: "But as for mindfulness of a present unwholesome factor being possible, which was the original issue, the Satipatthana Sutta does include the following two items that seems to indicate being aware of exactly what's going on at the current moment, whether wholesome or not: "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself (cittaanupassii viharati)? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion (citta.m saraaga.m), discerns (pajaanaati) that the mind has passion . When the mind is without passion (viitaraaga.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion (viitadosa.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion (viitadosa.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion (samoha.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion (viitamoha.m vaa citta.m), he discerns that the mind is without delusion..." Scott: This is 'cittaanupassanaa.' A couple of things. Seeing that 'pajaanaati' is used for 'discerns', the passage refers to the function of pa~n~naa, not sati, as far as I understand. And secondly, 'citta' is used for 'mind'. This suggests that a moment of consciousness is being referred to (as opposed to 'vi~n~naa.na' or 'mana' which, while synonymous, have different senses depending on context), one with a given root mental factor as indicated (raaga, dosa, moha). And these three are cetasika which, as the context suggests, arise conascent with citta in any of these given moments of consciousness. The passage does not point to any of the details, neither saying that sati or pa~n~naa function at the exact moment there is, say, dosa or at some other point in a sequence in relation to dosa. How do you propose to describe the way in which sati performs its function? I read you to see these processes in a global way, occurring without boundary and with a simultaneity. The view seems amorphous. I know we 'see' it differently (this is di.t.thi). -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. :-) ----------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================= With metta, Howard #91866 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape ... nilovg Dear Tep, Op 24-okt-2008, om 11:37 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > Some people want to believe that understanding is all it takes to > escape from all defilements. They even say that virtue is gained and > perfected by understanding. ------- N: You bet, and I belong to some people ;-)) Understanding takes the lead, but it is difficult to develop it. Together with understanding arises many good qualities, like renunciation, detachment and so on. Nina. #91867 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kusala or akusala? nilovg Dear Alberto and Sarah, Op 24-okt-2008, om 13:35 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > p.s I expect by now you've read all the past messages on the > cheating (vancaka) dhammas which Robert kindly pointed you to. If > not, try 'Cheating' in U.P. ------ N: I appreciate it to hear and discuss more about them. That is, when Alberto's computer is fixed. Nina. #91868 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: Well, I don't think they can *continue* to coexist, for the moment the akusala trait is seen with mindfulness and wisdom, it disappears. That is the dispelling I speak of. Perhaps the difference in our perspectives is that you accept a frame by frame view, whereas I do not." Scott: Right, and I don't accept that kusala and akusala 'co-exist' at the same moment. Again, the view proposed does not partake of any of the Abhidhamma clarifications that are to be found, neither that of momentaneity, nor those related to the Pa.t.thaana and the descriptions of conditionality found therein and simply does not conform (for which you make no apologies, of course). ;-) And, as usual, we must conclude another short excursion. Sincerely, Scott. #91869 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:20:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: Well, I don't think they can *continue* to coexist, for the moment the akusala trait is seen with mindfulness and wisdom, it disappears. That is the dispelling I speak of. Perhaps the difference in our perspectives is that you accept a frame by frame view, whereas I do not." Scott: Right, and I don't accept that kusala and akusala 'co-exist' at the same moment. Again, the view proposed does not partake of any of the Abhidhamma clarifications that are to be found, neither that of momentaneity, nor those related to the Pa.t.thaana and the descriptions of conditionality found therein and simply does not conform (for which you make no apologies, of course). ;-) And, as usual, we must conclude another short excursion. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. And I think that the bottom line on this and all similar discussions is that while I believe I have benefited from some Abhidhammic terminology and value the perspective suggested by it and have even adopted it, I do not believe that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the word of the Buddha nor do I think that the frame-by-frame commentarial interpretation of the Abhidhammic take on consciousness is to be found in the suttas nor possibly even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, and I do not feel at all bound by any of these, whereas your perspective is entirely, I presume, the diametric opposite. --------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ============================== With metta, Howard #91870 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:00 am Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >---Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > We read in the suttas about monks who developed both calm and > insight, but we should not conclude that we all must develop >jhna. If you want to achieve Ariya Magga (especially Anagami path and later), then you need to posses ALL. This is if we follow Buddha- Dhamma. > Many people who came to see the Buddha were used to developing > samatha already and the Buddha exhorted them to develop vipassan >as well so that defilements could be eradicated. And guess what!? Hearing a short sutta was enough for some of them to become Arahats. I'd like that sort of samatha development where by hearing a sutta I'd become an Arahant. > > Mindfulness of breathing is a subject of samatha and it is also > included in "mindfulness of the body" which is one of the "four > applications of mindfulness". In MN118 anapanasati covers ALL satipatthana. > Calm is not the same as concentration. We should remember that > concentration is a cetasika that accompanies each citta and that >can thus arise with kusala citta as well as with akusala citta. Nina, do you have direct perception of this or are you just quoting someone words? I ask you because you have said later on that >People who apply themselves to yoga may concentrate on breath for >reasons of health or relaxation. Have you ever tried to concentrate on the breath really really hard? Did you relax as the result? No. Brute Concentration causes headaches. One must achieve "attentive stillness" where through insightful letting go and due to UNDERSTANDING the mind doesn't "jump" off the breath to other objects. This stilling is achieved through insight, never through "concentration". Thus all the talk you have about "concentration vs insight" is armchair speculation, unfounded in actual real world. Best wishes, #91871 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:09 am Subject: Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Dear Scott, Howard and all, >Sati arises with kusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala >arising simultaneously, What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and alert as to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't trigger any alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! Or an acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is neutral. Best wishes, #91872 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Howard: "Yes. And I think that the bottom line on this and all similar discussions is that while I believe I have benefited from some Abhidhammic terminology and value the perspective suggested by it and have even adopted it, I do not believe that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the word of the Buddha nor do I think that the frame-by-frame commentarial interpretation of the Abhidhammic take on consciousness is to be found in the suttas nor possibly even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, and I do not feel at all bound by any of these, whereas your perspective is entirely, I presume, the diametric opposite." Scott: Yes, true. I would like to keep all of my own creative fancies out of the mix. I am deliberate in learning the Abhidhamma perspective, for example, (and the commentarial for that matter) and in adhering as much as possible to the view that this entails. I don't want to think my own thoughts about Dhamma. This is also old fodder, of course, isn't it Howard? I really can't understand why anyone would face the suttas unarmed, so to speak, and think that he or she could simply understand what the Dhamma is by sheer dint of personal theorising and eclectic idea-grafting. This is, as I see it, the choice you and others who read and discuss here have made. But, it takes all kinds to make a world. Sincerely, Scott. #91873 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:26 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path truth_aerator Hi Ken, >--- "kenhowardau" wrote: >you can see for yourself how right effort is dependent on right >understanding? How can a person be expected to exert right effort if >he doesn't understand what right effort is? How can a person be expected to fully understand what it means to swim, without swimming (or attempting to) first? How can a person develop right view without at least *some* right effort? Is right view a wholesome state? If it is, then right effort IS required! :) How is one supposed to achieve right view without at least *some* stilling of defilements (through samatha and/or Jhana)? Best wishes, #91874 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? TGrand458@... Hi Alex, All I think the difference between the things below and what I think of as "mindfulness," in the Suttas, is that the 'Sutta mindfulness,' I think, is always associated with some level of insight. It brings into account some level of DO understanding and the associated factors of impermanence, affliction, and nonself. I believe there is a group of Suttas, possibly in SN vol. 5, that state that when you have any one of the 5 factors/powers of enlightenment, the other four are also present. So, absent of THAT case, they perhaps are NOT what the Buddha has in mind by mindfulness. (This may also be stated in the case with the other enlightenment factors...Eightfold Path, etc.) The things below are "plain old" careful attention. Or even, plain old mindfulness, but not effectively the mindfulness the Buddha has in mind, IMO. TG OUT In a message dated 10/25/2008 10:09:40 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Scott, Howard and all, >Sati arises with kusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala >arising simultaneously, What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and alert as to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't trigger any alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! Or an acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is neutral. Best wishes, #91875 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:38 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and alert as to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't trigger any alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! Or an acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is neutral." Scott: No, Alex, you don't understand this. Sati cetasika is a sobhana saadaara.naa cetasika. It is 'wholesome'. There is no unwholesome version of sati. Sati could arise at any point in the robber's day and condition the stopping of akusala, but then that would be kusala in the moment sati was present. In the above one could be referring to cetanaa, sa~n~naa, ekaggataa - which are sabbacitta saadhaara.naa cetasikas (universals arising with each moment of consciousness); or one could also be referring to some of the paki.n.naka (particulars) cetasikas such as vitakka, vicaara, adhimokkha, viriya, or chanda. These can arise with either kusala or akusala jaati. This error arises because of a lack of clarity on the theoretical distinction between kusala and akusala, and on the characteristics and functions of the various cetasikas. All purposive 'human behaviour' is still accomplished by various impersonal dhammas, with characteristic and function, complex, arising and falling away. What one supposes is kusala, might not be, given that one misunderstands things in the way shown above. Sincerely, Scott. #91876 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:48 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Dear Scott, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and > alert as to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't > trigger any alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! Or an > acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall > off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is >neutral." > > Scott: No, Alex, you don't understand this. Sati cetasika is a > sobhana saadaara.naa cetasika. It is 'wholesome'. There is no > unwholesome version of sati. Sati could arise at any point in the > robber's day and condition the stopping of akusala, but then that > would be kusala in the moment sati was present. Please explain the mindfulness of unskillful action vs mindfulness of skillful action. Why can't robber be mindful of the burglary? After all, a heedless and forgetful robber would be caught very quickly! >All purposive 'human behaviour' is still accomplished by various >impersonal dhammas, I agree with this. Best wishes, #91877 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? scottduncan2 Dear TG, Welcome back. If I may attempt to re-engage a discussion here. You are correct to suggest to Alex that he is not referring to sati. You suggest: TG: "I think the difference between the things below and what I think of as 'mindfulness,' in the Suttas, is that the 'Sutta mindfulness,' I think, is always associated with some level of insight. It brings into account some level of DO understanding and the associated factors of impermanence, affliction, and nonself." Scott: Can you elucidate how you understand terms such as 'mindfulness' and 'insight' when you reject the notion of individual dhammas with characteristics and emphasize only conditions? I can't yet see how you justify using and considering these terms from within the 'view you see with.' The implication above is that these terms refer to separate entities and separate functions. Sincerely, Scott. #91878 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Hi TG, As I understand what people here mean by mindfulness if about being aware of presently arisen phenomena. The robber is definately very alert and attentive if he is to get away! So by Sati the Buddha had to mean Samma-Sati (wholesome sati), not any sati in general, which can be unwholesome. Best wishes, #91879 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:57 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Please explain the mindfulness of unskillful action vs mindfulness of skillful action. Why can't robber be mindful of the burglary? After all, a heedless and forgetful robber would be caught very quickly!" Scott: Forget mindfulness in relation to the everyday activities of a robber. This is confusing you. Unless sati were to arise and condition thoughts in this robber about the unwholesomeness of stealing and the need to desist, other dhammas will continue to arise, much as they do when you compose a post or make breakfast or walk to work. Sincerely, Scott. #91880 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:12 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Dear Scott, > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "Please explain the mindfulness of unskillful action vs >mindfulness of skillful action. Why can't robber be mindful of the >burglary? After all, a heedless and forgetful robber would be caught >very quickly!" > > Scott: Forget mindfulness in relation to the everyday activities of >a robber. This is confusing you. Why? Isn't real life is what there is? Why hide unproven claims beyond some unseen (and unverifiable) dhammas arising in a billionth of a second? > Unless sati were to arise and > condition thoughts in this robber about the unwholesomeness of > stealing and the need to desist, other dhammas will continue to >arise, much as they do when you compose a post or make breakfast or >walk to work. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Scott, why does mindfulness have to condition thoughts about unwholesomeness only? Why can't mindfulness be of neutral and akusala Dhamma. In fact what is this constant referencing to unseen dhammas arising billions of times per second that can only have sati arise with akusala? Weren't there awareness of realities happening NOW in the robber's mind as he was mindfully cutting the glass, avoiding tripping avoiding setting the alarm and so on? Scott, do you have direct perception that sati ALWAYS arises with Kusala only or do you believe it due to having read it in Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Hey, isn't that an oxymoron? How much do the dhamma theory applies to "daily life" which you, Ken and others even claim doesn't exist (no me, no you, no boss, no chairs, no cars, no job, etc)! Some very interesting double life you are livin' . Best wishes, #91881 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries TGrand458@... Hi All There is the view expressed by Scott below that commentaries better equip the mind to understand Suttas. There is another view that believes that the Suttas are the authority and any commentary that introduces new terminology and new analytical ideas not found in the Suttas, is to be highly questioned and likely (but not necessarily) in error. (The Suttas themselves tell us to match up meaning for meaning, and if it isn't in the Suttas, it is to be rejected.) I have been accused by some in here as being arrogant in thinking I know more than the great commentators by not accepting the commentaries verbatim. However, I will turn that around....and say that those who base their understanding of the Suttas ON the commentaries, are claiming superior knowledge over the ARAHATS that lived with the Buddha and were taught by the Buddha and personally enlightened by him. Even these GREAT humans, did not think it fit for THEM to alter the Vinaya to eliminate the "minor rules," much less the Suttas. They didn't even feel themselves qualified to claim full knowledge of what the minor rules would have entailed for the Buddha. They had such high regard for the Dhamma being meticulously preserved that they would not even make somewhat 'conventional changes' in the rules. YET, many folks in here, by giving priority to commentaries, seem to feel FULLY qualified to mess around with the Suttas, to add new terms, new emphasizes, as to what the Suttas taught. And even claim things that aren't in the Suttas are the MAIN teaching of the Suttas. WOW! They do this based on commentaries and interpretations of commentaries. What ends up happening is -- the Suttas are transformed to match with commentaries, not the other way around. If folks want to use commentaries as the basis for their understanding...that's cool. When they claim that those commentarial views ARE the views of the Buddha, or what the Buddha taught, that aint cool. That's called revisionist history. I've spent years studying the Abhidhamma along with commentaries. The majority of it is useful to varying degrees, some of it seems to be blunderingly off the mark. I'll use the Suttas as my core basis of understanding. And I'll accept that charge of being arrogant by over-riding some aspects of commentaries....as long as in fairness, those who use the commentaries as their core basis of understanding, who use terms not found in the Suttas, and skew meaning in accordance to those newly invented terms, unfound in the Suttas, accept the charge of being arrogant over the Arahats taught by the Buddha. Otherwise, it comes off as foolish to charge others with inventing their own theories, for the latter arrogance is 100 times more arrogant than the former. And the commentarial view, that some follow verbatim, has left those followers minds unequiped to understand the Suttas and deal with what they contain, as opposed to what is invented in the commentaries. The commenatries potentially contaminate the mind with views from lessor minds. No one understand anything "on their own." That is impossible. The mind understands things based on conditions. I'll use the Suttas as my core conditions for understanding. Others can use commentaries, generations removed, with added new and exciting terms as their core conditions. I think the logic of the latter group is highly in question, but good luck to you just the same. Commentaries are possible assists in understanding the Suttas, they come with the risk of being totally wrong, they have zero authority. Have a nice day. TG OUT #91882 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/25/2008 10:55:24 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Can you elucidate how you understand terms such as 'mindfulness' and 'insight' when you reject the notion of individual dhammas with characteristics and emphasize only conditions? I can't yet see how you justify using and considering these terms from within the 'view you see with.' The implication above is that these terms refer to separate entities and separate functions. Sincerely, Scott. ........................................ TG: I could but I won't waste my time. ;-) TG OUT #91883 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/25/2008 12:09:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Scott, Howard and all, >Sati arises with kusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala >arising simultaneously, What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and alert as to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't trigger any alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! -------------------------- Howard: It is certainly being attentive and concentrated, even absorbed, due to interest and desire and fear, but I don't think that is what sati is. As I have said, I believe it is a mental self-monitoring (uh, oh - don't anyone get upset 'cause I said "self"! LOL!) that avoids losing clear awareness of what is actually going on in the mind. It is not paying attention to what is going on "out there in the world." ------------------------- Or an acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is neutral. --------------------------------- Howard: Again, I don't think that is sati. In fact, unless an acrobat were a high ariyan, I would guess that the mental monitoring I'm referring to would lead to the acrobat mindfully observing his thoughts and feelings as he plunged to his death. ------------------------------------- Best wishes, ===================== With metta, Howard #91884 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Scott, why does mindfulness have to condition thoughts about unwholesomeness only? Why can't mindfulness be of neutral and akusala Dhamma." Scott: That would 'dhamma'. And sati can have kusala and akusala dhammas as objects. A: "Weren't there awareness of realities happening NOW in the robber's mind as he was mindfully cutting the glass, avoiding tripping avoiding setting the alarm and so on?" Scott: Not unless sati arose. There would have been attention and concentration and the like, as I mentioned. Sincerely, Scott. #91885 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Hi Howard & Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 10/25/2008 12:09:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Dear Scott, Howard and all, > > >Sati arises with kusala citta. One cannot have kusala and akusala > >arising simultaneously, > > What about a robber mindfully robbing a bank being mindful and alert as > to not leave any clues, steal what was planned, and don't trigger any > alarm? There is unwholesome mindfulness there! > -------------------------- > Howard: > It is certainly being attentive and concentrated, even absorbed, due to > interest and desire and fear, but I don't think that is what sati is. As I > have said, I believe it is a mental self-monitoring (uh, oh - don't anyone get > upset 'cause I said "self"! LOL!) that avoids losing clear awareness of what > is actually going on in the mind. It is not paying attention to what is going > on "out there in the world." > ------------------------- If by sati we mean that sort of satipatthana sati, then I agree. Satipatthana if properly done is wholesome and beneficial. However if we translate samma-sati just as "observation, mindfulness" that is always wholesome, then we will run up into the problems that I've just shown above. > > Or an acrobat being very mindful walking on the high rope not to fall > off. The mindfulness (sati) there isn't "wholesome" , it is neutral. > --------------------------------- > Howard: > Again, I don't think that is sati. In fact, unless an acrobat were a > high ariyan, I would guess that the mental monitoring I'm referring to would > lead to the acrobat mindfully observing his thoughts and feelings as he plunged > to his death. > ------------------------------------- If by sati we mean= Mindfulness, then the acrobat DOES have lots of sati. If by sati we mean samma-sati of N8P, then it is not samma-sati. Best wishes, #91886 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/25/2008 12:24:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Howard: "Yes. And I think that the bottom line on this and all similar discussions is that while I believe I have benefited from some Abhidhammic terminology and value the perspective suggested by it and have even adopted it, I do not believe that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the word of the Buddha nor do I think that the frame-by-frame commentarial interpretation of the Abhidhammic take on consciousness is to be found in the suttas nor possibly even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, and I do not feel at all bound by any of these, whereas your perspective is entirely, I presume, the diametric opposite." Scott: Yes, true. I would like to keep all of my own creative fancies out of the mix. I am deliberate in learning the Abhidhamma perspective, for example, (and the commentarial for that matter) and in adhering as much as possible to the view that this entails. I don't want to think my own thoughts about Dhamma. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It ALWAYS comes down to our own thoughts, even when we cede authority to others. What you call creative fancies is what I call my understanding of the Dhamma. It seems to me that you think you KNOW what is the correct understanding of the Dhamma. I admit to not knowing. ----------------------------------------------- This is also old fodder, of course, isn't it Howard? I really can't understand why anyone would face the suttas unarmed, so to speak, and think that he or she could simply understand what the Dhamma is by sheer dint of personal theorising and eclectic idea-grafting. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Who is it who decides to rely on the judgement of others if not you, Scott? BTW, your terminology of "creative fancies," "personal theorising," and "eclectic idea-grafting" is insulting. Are you unaware of that, or is it your intention? ---------------------------------------------------- This is, as I see it, the choice you and others who read and discuss here have made. But, it takes all kinds to make a world. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. ---------------------------------------------- Sincerely, ============================= With metta, Howard #91887 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 5. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 25-okt-2008, om 18:00 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Calm is not the same as concentration. We should remember that > > concentration is a cetasika that accompanies each citta and that > >can thus arise with kusala citta as well as with akusala citta. > > Nina, do you have direct perception of this or are you just quoting > someone words? -------- N: The Abhidhamma. --------- > I ask you because you have said later on that > > >People who apply themselves to yoga may concentrate on breath for > >reasons of health or relaxation. Have you ever tried to concentrate on the breath really really hard? Did you relax as the result? No. Brute Concentration causes headaches. ------- N: Just a few years ago we were in India in a hotel with a kind of health spa. There was a very nice person who led a session about breathing, and we attended this. It was in a lovely surrounding outside, early morning, beautiful nature. He gave very good directions, amd was not pretending to have higher wisdom or so. We tried to follow as best as we could but we were not very good pupils, difficult to do it right. I can imagine that if you can do it well it must help to relax and get rid of tension. It is good for your general wellbeing. I do not believe it leads to headaches, then you do not do it the right way. Nina. #91888 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator I believe that it is pure heresy to believe that someone can excel Buddha's teaching. He was the best, none of the best Arahants could match him. He didn't even allow Ven. Sariputta to be the leader. It is insulting to every Buddhist to claim that such and such a monk can explain Buddha't teaching better than the Man Himself. It is very slanderous to Bhagavat to imply that he couldn't explain it in a clearest possible manner and that it would need commentary. Buddha himself in DN16 has stated that whatever monk or group of monks say, it must be checked with the Suttas. This is how a good teaching is ruined. It is gradually mixed with the works of the disciples who make mistakes. At first there is little adhamma, but over time (like 1,000 years) substantial wrong additions can be made and eventually eclipse the original teaching making it almost unrecognizable. It is no surprise that some people who start with the commentaries find suttas so difficult. No wonder. If the commentaries teach & emphasize one thing and the Buddha's teaching another, no wonder why suttas are so difficult! It is also questionable to rely on unnamed commentators. How do we know that they aren't being mistaken? How do we know that those unnamed elders aren't of Sati, Arittha, Devadatta, Udayin kind? There is one famous commentator living 1000 years later than the Buddha who has wrote a famous commentarial work with which he has hoped to earn enough merit to be able to meet the next Buddha and achieve awakening there. Wow. Here we have a Venerable monk implying that the methods current in his time didn't or couldn't lead him to awakening then and there. Who wants to rely on such commentator and such commentary? I'd like to stick to the suttas which are visibile HERE AND NOW, TIMELESS, to be visible by and for oneself, leading onward and so on. In a certain sutta the Buddha has stated that what he taught was like the leaves in has hand vs the amount of leaves in the forest? Why did he teach so little? Because the rest is un needed, unnecessarily, do not lead to dispassion, disenchantment and so on. There is entire samuytta where the Buddha and his students refuse to answer a number of speculative/philosophical questions which were common to wanderers of those times? And why? Because those questions are unbeneficial and do not lead to Nibbana. Modern day example. In order to drive a car you do not need a degree in Physics, Chemistry, mechanics, electronics and so on. You do NOT need to know such minute and irrelevant details such as how much transistors (or whatever) there are in the car in order to drive it. If you tried to learn everything you could about working of the car, that would take entire lifetime and you'd never have the time to drive it! "Conventional" , rough and basic knowledge will do just fine, as it has for millions of drivers who do not have PhD in Electronics, physics, chemistry and so on. Best wishes, #91889 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "It ALWAYS comes down to our own thoughts, even when we cede authority to others. What you call creative fancies is what I call my understanding of the Dhamma. It seems to me that you think you KNOW what is the correct understanding of the Dhamma. I admit to not knowing." Scott: This is always such a touchy subject around here. No, of course I'm not saying that 'I know', Howard. (And by the way, when understanding arises at any level, it is down to pa~n~naa.) I know we're both wrong when we just make it up. And of course we both think our own thoughts. I don't think you'd deny that your 'understanding' of the Dhamma diverges from that set out in, say, traditional Theravada - yours *is an eclectic amalgam of sorts. I'd not think you'd make any bones about this assessment of your work. I'm not claiming to have understood something by offering some new theory or innovative twist on anything. I'm only presenting what I find in the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and commentaries and trying to learn same. This is just book learning. If one tries to learn an established view, and another makes up a new view, how do these two differ? Howard: "Who is it who decides to rely on the judgement of others if not you, Scott? BTW, your terminology of 'creative fancies,' 'personal theorising,' and 'eclectic idea-grafting' is insulting. Are you unaware of that, or is it your intention?" Scott: Howard, this is about views. This isn't about 'Howard'. I'm not saying that you are an eclectic grafted idea. Try not to be so attached to the views you put forth. They differ from the standard, they are put out for others to read, and they are fair game. This is not about 'Howard'. If I think the views you set forth, compared to Abhidhamma and Commentarial views, are 'personal theorising' or 'eclectic idea-grafting' - why should this suddenly be an insult to you? You don't deny that the views are not standard. You admit you don't accept the Abhidhamma. I don't mind. You don't deny that the views are your own. It is clear that there is borrowing from at least two different traditions. Why would having this reiterated be insulting? If you feel free (and you are free) to present these views in this forum, why freak out if someone wants to discuss them? Frankly, I'm so arrogant that I just assume you are wrong and then use the occasion to study the literature I deem to right and find out how you are wrong. ;-) No harm there. Its not about 'Howard'. I've noticed that, when it comes to those who present their own views which differ from the standard of this list, any challenge to these views elicits a huge huff in which one or the other eventually goes off. I'd predict that, upon reading this, you'll do the same. Its as if no one is allowed to question these non-standard views, presented (freely and without restraint) on a list devoted to views which are often the direct opposite. Why would one not expect to have a discussion that is very polarized? Why not just continue to discuss? Sincerely, Scott. #91890 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/25/2008 3:53:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Why not just continue to discuss? ======================== Nope, no thanks. :-) With metta, Howard #91891 From: han tun Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:13 pm Subject: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape hantun1 Dear Tep and Nina, In Burma during pre-war days, some parents used to frighten their children to observe the five precepts, by saying that Sakka would come down to earth and split the head of those who broke the five precepts, or Sakka would take them physically and put them in hell. Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not? Han #91892 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' jonoabb Hi Sarah (again) Sarah said: > I also liked this comment: > "Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word." Re-reading your post out by the pool a short time ago (I'm as behind as ever), this passage struck me as neatly capturing the point we so often try to make (albeit clumsily) in response to those who take us as saying that hearing and considering is all there is to the development of the path. Jon PS Howard, if you're listening ... Perhaps I'll write separately. #91893 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" jonoabb Hi Howard > Are you saying that the notion that hearing, reflecting on and > pondering over the teachings can condition the arising of more kusala > in one's life is not found in the texts? > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's alleged sufficiency is not. You give this as the alpha & omega of > Dhamma practice. It is not. > ------------------------------------------ In another thread Sarah gave this quote from a recording: "Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word." Do you see the significance of the considering being *about dhammas (individual phenomena)* rather than just about the word/idea being spoken/described? Jon #91894 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries jonoabb Hi Scott and Howard Glad to be able to agree with Howard on this ;-)) > Whosoever's translation it may be, if it is correct, it > does, I agree, suggest the possibility of referring to one who is at a stage > at which s/he can remember past lives and detailing the mindful contemplation > of phenomena by that person. Just something to add to this: > it does, I agree, suggest the possibility of referring to one who is at a stage > at which s/he can remember past lives and detailing the mindful contemplation > of phenomena by that person. The point being, I think, that "the mindful contemplation of phenomena by that person" is exactly the same as it would be for any other person, attainment to recollection of past lives or not. Jon #91895 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' jonoabb Hi Nina --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Jon, > my sympathy with the loss of Albany. I remember your post about her > before. She must have been remarkable. Thanks, Nina. > I appreciated your reflections about losing everything. While > reflecting on this, I noticed that I was thinking of myself losing > everything, and realised that this was not right. As you quoted, > <"Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is > consideration about reality, not just about the word."> Yes, this same quote struck me, too. As you say, our thinking so quickly becomes self-centred, even when it's thinking about dhamma! Thanks for the reminder (and for many others in your posts too numerous to mention!). Jon #91896 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Quote Survey. jonoabb Hi Howard (and Sarah) > Howard: > For one thing, this material says nothing of "real". The Uraga Sutta, > does though, saying "All this is unreal." But more to then point, I didn't > speak of a list of things, that are considered real, but a definition of 'real', > and specification of what the term means. And, for sure, there is no single > fixed meaning for that term. To my reading, the teachings do not speak of the meaning of "real" in the abstract. They speak of "dhammas", sometimes are translated as "realities", and of the expression "in truth and reality". But not about the meaning of "real" per se. So it's possible that this may not be a particularly relevant issue as far as the development of the path is concerned. By the way, the expression "in truth and reality" I take to mean simply in accordance with the way things are, in the absolute sense. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > A chariot is an integrated collection of rupas that act in concert to > function in a certain manner. Aside from the rupas properly interconnected, > there is no chariot. When the rupas are there and appropriately configured, that > is a real basis for the idea of "the chariot". As soon as the collection is > dismantled, though, that is no longer so. Those are the facts, and merely > voicing "unreal" is an oversimplification that hides the reality of the > situation. > -------------------------------------- There are 2 statements in the foregoing that I think neatly highlight the point of the chariot simile. These are (and I have reversed the order in which they appear): - When the appropriate rupas are there and appropriately configured, that is a real basis for the idea of "the chariot". - A chariot is an integrated collection of rupas that act in concert to function in a certain manner. The first statement says that when certain dhammas are associated in a particular way, there is a specific designation that is given ("chariot", "person", etc). This I think is what is being said in the chariot simile. The second statement restates (reinterprets?) the first. It says that a chariot or person is certain dhammas that are associated in a particular way. In a conventional sense, of course, the second follows logically from the first. However, in terms of the dhamma, there is not the same connection to be made, because the object of the first statement is the *designation* [of chariot, or whatever], and not anything more substantial than that. A similar distinction can be seen between the following 2 statements: - A chariot is the name given to a certain rupas that are configured in a particular way. - A chariot is certain rupas that are configured in a particular way. In terms of the teaching on individual phenomena and the development of the path, the first acknowledges "chariot" as a designation (pannatti), while the second does not (unless one is using the term as if in inverted commas;-)). In my view anyway. Jon #91897 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:38:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Sarah (again) Sarah said: > I also liked this comment: > "Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word." Re-reading your post out by the pool a short time ago (I'm as behind as ever), this passage struck me as neatly capturing the point we so often try to make (albeit clumsily) in response to those who take us as saying that hearing and considering is all there is to the development of the path. Jon PS Howard, if you're listening ... Perhaps I'll write separately. ================================ I approve of listening and wisely considering, Jon. As for your writing, I'm always happy to hear from you. With metta, Howard #91898 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self" upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:39:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > Are you saying that the notion that hearing, reflecting on and > pondering over the teachings can condition the arising of more kusala > in one's life is not found in the texts? > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's alleged sufficiency is not. You give this as the alpha & omega of > Dhamma practice. It is not. > ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- Howard: This quote got garbled somehow, Jon. --------------------------------------------------- In another thread Sarah gave this quote from a recording: "Anyone can hear [the Dhamma], but it depends on how wisely there is consideration about reality, not just about the word." ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with what Sarah said. But considering, even wisely, is still just thinking. It is definitely important, but it does not constitute the whole of dhamma practice by a long shot. --------------------------------------------------- Do you see the significance of the considering being *about dhammas (individual phenomena)* rather than just about the word/idea being spoken/described? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand what you've written here, Jon, but perhaps my previous statement answers this as well. -------------------------------------------------- Jon ========================== With metta, Howard #91899 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape nilovg Dear Han, Op 26-okt-2008, om 2:13 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with > understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not? -------- N: We have to remember that there are so many different cittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas alternating very quickly. When a child refrains from hitting another child it is kusala, but at another moment he remembers with fear that he wil be taken to Hell by Sakka if he neglects the precepts, and that is aversion or dosa. Through the Patthana we learn that akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependence condition. This is a good example. Nina. #91900 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!' nilovg Dear Jon, Op 26-okt-2008, om 4:41 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > As you say, our thinking so quickly becomes self-centred, even when > it's thinking about dhamma! Thanks for the reminder (and for many > others in your posts too numerous to mention!). -------- N: Thank you for your post. I was discussing with Lodewijk that when I read a reminder in Thai or in English it is different. In Thai the personal pronoun of I and you is left out most of the time. For me personally this is very helpful. The reminder is very direct and does not distract me with I and you. But of course if we rightly reflect in English we need not be distracted or think immediately of I. Nina. #91901 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries nilovg Dear Alex and TG, Op 25-okt-2008, om 21:21 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Who wants to rely on such commentator and > such commentary? > > I'd like to stick to the suttas which are visibile HERE AND NOW, > TIMELESS, to be visible by and for oneself, leading onward and so on. ------- N: I read the posts of both of you. If you find the commentaries not helpful, do not read them. TG, you spoke about flagrant mistakes, and before I discussed a point with you but it did not come over very convincing what you said. If there is a subject in the Co. you find interesting we can discuss, but no need if you are not interested. When you find something incomprehensible, it may also be that you yourself do not understand the point, possible? I am glad to read commentaries in Pali, because only few texts we have in English. I also have the Thai to help me. We read in the suttas about D.O. but it is very concise and brief. I am glad to study the Vis. and tiika to help me to relate D.O. to the actuality of daily life. We read about old age and death and it is good to be reminded that there is momentary death, the arising and falling away of citta at each moment, also now. Should we not know this moment? I am grateful for all the help I can get, and I need a lot of help. ***** Nina. #91902 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:55 pm Subject: Cutting the 5 Chains! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to Cut the Five Minor Mental Chains: Friends, how does one cut the 5 minor mental chains of: 1: Identity and personality belief. 2: Skeptical doubt in Buddha's Awakening. 3: Superstitious clinging to rule & ritual. 4: Greed, desire, lust and attraction. 5: Hate, anger, irritation & aversion. In whatever situation or mental state one enters, whether high or low, whether fine or foul, whether subtle or gross, whether far or near, one knows, notes, reflects and remembers the facts exactly like this: 'Whatsoever herein is form, feeling, experience, mental construction, & bare consciousness, all this is impermanent, transient, passing, unstable, decaying, and vanishing; all this is miserable, painful, ill, a thorn, a tumour, a disaster, a torture, and a burning pit; all this is remote, alien, impersonal, ownerless, void of stable substance & keepable entity, completely empty of any self-ego-me-I-mine-identity-or-personality...' One thereby directs mind away from those unsafe phenomena and turns it towards the freedom of the Deathless Dimension: Nibbâna like this: 'But this is peace, the supreme stilling of all construction, the relinquishing of all acquisition, the sublime release of all clinging, the calming of all craving, disgust, disillusion, ceasing of all noise, perception, & sensation, Nibbâna...' Firmly established in this safe mode of reflection, one either eliminates the mental fermentations completely and thus attains Nibbâna - here and now - in this very life, or if not that, then one is reborn spontaneously in the pure abodes, the pure lands, the pure realms, the pure spheres, of fine material, where one clears the 5 lower fetters - the 5 minor mental chains - & attains Nibbâna from there, without ever returning to this world from that level... The Moderated Speeches by the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 64 [I 435-7] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html PS: The 'Pure Land' (SukhaVati) Buddhism of today may thus have begun from what the Buddha early & originally called 'The Pure Abodes' (SuddhaVasa): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html#rupa Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net .... #91903 From: han tun Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:57 pm Subject: Re: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape hantun1 Dear Nina (Tep), > > Han: Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not? > Nina: We have to remember that there are so many different cittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas alternating very quickly. When a child refrains from hitting another child it is kusala, but at another moment he remembers with fear that he wil be taken to Hell by Sakka if he neglects the precepts, and that is aversion or dosa. Through the Patthana we learn that akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependence condition. This is a good example. Han: Thank you very much, Nina, for your kind reply. I just want to make sure one point. When you wrote [Through the Patthana we learn that akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependence condition.] I connect the akusala in this sentence with the aversion or dosa in the preceding sentence. If that is correct, no need to reply. Respectfully, Han #91904 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:35 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, Why is mindfulness of breathing included in the four applications of mindfulness, in the section on mindfulness of the body? The reason is that any reality can be object of right understanding, also the nmas and rpas which appear when there are conditions for mindfulness of breathing. Any reality which appears at this moment, be it calm, akusala citta or any other reality, can be the object of right understanding. If one is attached to calm there is attachment, not bhvan. We may be attached to the calm which can arise while we reflect on the teachings. Reflection on the Dhamma is actually included among the subjects of samatha (Visuddhimagga Ch VII, 68). Reflection on the Dhamma is indispensable in order to understand the meaning of what the Buddha taught. Are we attached to calm while we take part in Dhamma discussions and reflect on the teachings? Do we want more and more of such moments? We should not forget that the goal of the teachings is not calm of the level of samatha but the eradication of defilements through the development of insight. Because of clinging to calm we may forget to be mindful of the nma or rpa which appears now. Khun Sujin said: There is seeing now, no calm. Study it now, that is the development of satipatthna. There should not be attachment to calm. One knows that seeing arises, but is there understanding of it? It is useless to see without understanding, to hear without understanding. When one knows this, one is not involved in wanting to be calm. No matter how calm one is, without studying and understanding reality as it is, it is useless. It cannot condition satipatthna. The goal of the teachings is the understanding of the reality which appears so that ignorance and wrong view will be eliminated. That is why the Buddha always taught about seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, the experiences through the mind-door, about each doorway. Because of ignorance we confuse the different doorways. Khun Sujin said that the cure of ignorance is awareness and study of the realities which appear. In that way there can be right understanding of all realities as they are. ******* Nina. #91905 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:38 am Subject: Survey Quotes. nilovg Dear friends, Moha cetasika, ignorance, does not know realities as they are. Moha experiences an object, it is confronted with an object, but it is unable to know the true characteristic of the object which appears. For example, when one is seeing now one may not know that what appears through the eyes is just a rpa, a kind of reality. There may also be doubt about realities. One may doubt whether it is true that one does not see people or things, as one always believed, but only a rpa, appearing through the eyesense. Doubt does not arise all the time, but whenever there is doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and about the characteristics of realities which appear, there is moha-mla-citta vicikicch-sampayutta. When we have seen, heard, smelt, tasted or experienced tangible object through the bodysense, the javana-cittas which follow, when the cittas are not kusala, are often moha-mla-cittas which are uddhacca-sampayutta, accompanied by restlessness. These types arise when the akusala citta is not accompanied by lobha cetasika, dosa cetasika or vicikicch cetasika (doubt). Then we can know the characteristic of moha-mla-citta which is uddhacca-sampayutta, arising when we are forgetful of realities and do not know the characteristic of the object which appears ****** Nina. #91906 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- On Fri, 24/10/08, Scott wrote: >Regarding 'Quote from recording': >"...That is the moment of real studying - the characteristic of a reality - to be ruupa or to be naama by not naming it or by not thinking about it but by understanding that characteristic as hardness cannot be anything besides hardness itself. And that which experiences hardness is different. One at a time until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look whether this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality cannot experience anything at all.' We don't have to say out or speak in words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things...".. .The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books." >Scott: I'm enjoying the recorded discussions - thanks again, Sarah (Jon). In the above, when referring to 'awareness', I'd hazard that this might refer to 'sati'. If this is the case, the quote might be an attempt at describing the experience of sati's function - or perhaps the early or 'tender' 'process' of satipa.t.thaana. Do you see it this way? .... Sarah: Yes, she's referring to sati, the "early or 'tender' process of satipa.t.thaana' as you put it. When such sati develops, it becomes more and more used to the characteristics of naamas and ruupas. ... >It can be difficult to describe experience - to find the words capable of designating an experience of anything. In the texts, taking 'sati' for example (as is being discussed elsewhere) one can read the words which define and describe sati by function, etc., but these words cannot substitute for experience - and sometimes, at least for me, fail to conjure up an equivalent recognition of something like it I might have experienced. ... Sarah: I think that the more clearly pa~n~naa understands its characteristic and more clearly understands when there is and is not sati, the less it matters what words are used. Of course, this all comes back to the understanding of the realities - the objects of such sati in this case (i.e of satipatthana). .... What I like about the quote in particular is that it clarifies that the bad reputation given 'book learning' is both deserved and undeserved. It is undeserved if one misconstrues - and I haven't read anyone here who makes the following claim - that this is some form of practise that will lead someone anywhere. It is deserved because reading is no substitute for experience (but awareness can arise while reading but the focus wouldn't be on the content of the reading but on some aspect of experience - it would be on some reality arising during 'reading'). .... >And, Nina, I'm glad too that Luke is settling in to the diabetes routine and can still play the game he loves. .... Sarah: I'm glad to hear this too. It's tough for kids if they can't join in the sports they enjoy. I hold a very informal Sunday school at Big Wave Bay every Sunday morning - actually, there are just a couple of kids who attend, sons of a surfer friend. I 'educate' them and the friend gives me a lift home later. Today I was explaining how they could have millions of friends by being friendly to everyone they meet, thereby everyone becoming a friend. They asked me some challenging questions about others not being friendly to us,about others we've never met, people thinking it strange if we're friendly and say 'hi' when we don't know them and much more. Anyway, it was a good introduction to metta without any special terms being mentioned. Later we moved onto sugar and teeth (one of the boys has just lost a few baby teeth)and after some gruesome accounts of what may happen if they continue to eat so many sweets, they both said they were giving them up. (We'll see how long that lasts!). We then tackled some newspaper stories suitable for small children (ha, ha) such as failed banks (depicted by falling sugar packets like dominoes), the release of 3 of the murder suspects (including one of our friends) in the Big Wave Bay murder trial, bringing in the ways characters change from moment to moment depicted by their babyish tantrums one minute and kind sharing of toys another:-). Their favourite was on the way home when one of them started using some bad language he'd picked up. I gave an account of how I had once taken a student into the bathroom and threatened to clean his mouth out with soapy water. As they dropped me off, these boys were begging me not to bring any soap with me next week:-) And now I'm thinking of Han's example of fear conditioning the 'right' behaviour:-))) Sorry, rambled off on the proliferation about kids and diets. Metta, Sarah ======== #91907 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Wed, 8/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: > Thank you for answering to the point!!! ... S: Thank you for mentioning it!!! (#91100) > .................................................. > Now, it is my understanding that the Aggregates and > elements ARE what you consider "Dhammas." This > means, the Buddha is calling "Dhammas" -- > insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, > like a conjurer's trick. ... S: Yes, they are empty of self, empty of any substance. They are the basis for atta-sa~n~naa. In other words, without these elements, these dhammas, there would be no mis-construing, no idea of permanence, self, beauty or happiness. For the wise, they are known to be impermanent, empty of self, foul and unsatisfactory. .... > Any perception of them would > also be -- insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like > a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. ... S: Yes, the right perception of them is that they are insubstantial, empty of self, like a mirage which deceives the foolish who take there to be substance or self in them. ... >Seems to me a far > cry from "ultimate realities with their own > characteristics." ... S: Hardness (pathavi dhatu) is an example of an element or the first khandha, rupa. Hardness is different from temperature, for example. It can be experienced directly now and it has the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, like all other conditioned dhammas. ... >And a far cry from a practice that > seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate > realities with their own characteristics. In fact, it seem > 180 degrees opposite the Buddha's teaching. ... S: When you refer to "a practice that seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate realities etc", that sounds more like a practice of attachment to me. In fact, whether or not there is any understanding of dhammas, whether or not a Buddha ever teaches about dhammas or elements, such conditioned dhammas arise and fall away all the time regardless. I accidentally snipped the rest of the post before responding to one comment. I had quoted from the commentary to SN22:95 "A Lump of Foam" and with regard to this: S: "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic." You replied that you found it a "laughable stretch and wild run of the imagination" and so on. You also have stressed how you've read the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries and have come to your own conclusions. This just proves that we can all read the same materials, but it all comes back to the differing reflections and perceptions and views. Thanks for your other comments, TG. Let's just agree to differ on these points:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #91908 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, I stated to reply to one of your posts a long time back, but when I was ready to post it, you'd already taken a leave of absence, so it's been in a draft folder ever since where I just happened to notice it. --- On Sun, 14/9/08, Phil wrote: P:> There are so very many suttas that refer to beings in the more conventional way, but I can't recall any others than this one short sutta in the bhikkuni section of SN that do so. If anyone could lead me to a major, fully developed discourse in MN, for example, that gets at this, it would be more persuasive. >And a question, maybe an obvious one. When the Buddha vowed to work for the liberation of all sentient beings, was he referring to concepts? Did he vow to work/teach etc for the liberation of concepts? That seems a bit odd... >He did make that vow in the Pali canon, didn't he? Or is that just a Mahayana thing? .... >or example, in MN9 under 'Ageing and Death' we read (Nanamoli/Bodhi tansl): >"The passing of beings out of various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body - this is called death." ... S: I don't think anyone would have any problem with this definition of death, including non-Buddhists. So where is the profundity of the teachings we hear so much about? How does this relate to the section before it about the first Noble Truth? Let's look at the commentary note on these same lines: "Now, to explain death in (terms valid in) the ultimate sense, he next says 'the dissolution of the aggregates (khandhaana"m bhedo) etc* For in the ultimate sense it is only the aggregates that break up; it is not any so called being that dies. But when the aggregates are breaking up convention says 'a being is dying' and when they have broken up convention says '(he is) dead'." ..... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64746 Sarah:> Yamaka Sutta, SN22:85 (Bodhi transl) in which Sariputta certainly doesn't 'sugarcoat' the message when hearing of Yamaka's wrong views: ..... " 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?' - 'No, friend.' - 'Do you regard feeling...perception....volitional formations....consciousness as the Tathagata?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in form.....apart from form....in consciousness....as apart from consciousness?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [taken together] as the Tathagata?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?' - 'No, friend.' 'But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life*, is it fitting for you to declare: 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?' 'Formerly, friend Sariputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sariputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.'" **** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/62067 PHIL:> First of all, there is the fact that, in the Buddha's teaching, persons/being do not have ultimate existence. "There is no Nina, no Lodewijk" is not a radical statement by a modern teaccher, it is the Buddha's teaching, plain and simple. As Acharn Sujin says "no one can change the Buddha's word." >SN 35:23 >At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that... "And what, Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objexts, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make know another all' - taht would be a mere empty boast on his part. If here were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexations. For what reason? because, bhikkhus, taht would not be within his domain.'" *** S: Also: From the Mulapariyaya Sutta and commentary, MN1 (Bodhi transl) [the worldling] “he perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) from beings; he conceives ‘beings are mine’; he delights in beings. What is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I declare.” *** The commentary gives lots of detail about the 3 ways of mis-perception of beings by way of attachment, conceit and wrong views about people (sakkaaya-di.t.thi). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25767 Rob M: M: By what name shall I know you, Sir? N: My companions call me Nâgasena. But the name and the person to whom the name refers do not really exist. M: If Nâgasena and the person do not exist, to whom do people offer alms and who receives these offerings? Since you receive them, you really exist. N: Your Majesty, did you come to this monastery on foot or by chariot? M: I came by chariot. N: Well then, what is a chariot? Is the horse the chariot? Is the wheel the chariot? Is the axle the chariot? Is the carriage the chariot? M: I must answer "No" to all of your questions. N: Is there a thing called chariot beside the horse, the wheel, the axle, the carriage, etc.? M: There is no chariot beside the horse, the wheels, the axle and the carriage. Just a combination of these things has been named a chariot. N: Very well, your Majesty, you should understand Nâgasena as you understood the chariot. >Speaker Notes ============= <...>The dialogue above takes place when they first meet and illustrates the idea that concepts do not ultimately exist and apparent realities can be broken into ultimate realities. >According to the Visuddhi Magga (Path of Purification), "… So in many hundred Suttas there is only mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles… are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot… so too, when there are the five khandhas of clinging there comes to be the mere conventional term '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." Metta, Sarah ======== #91909 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape visitorfromt... Dear Han (Nina), - You wrote: >In Burma during pre-war days, some parents used to frighten their children to observe the five precepts, by saying that Sakka would come down to earth and split the head of those who broke the five precepts, or Sakka would take them physically and put them in hell. Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not? T: Of course they would, because awareness of fear results in restraint and non-transgression in most children as well as in most adults. Yet, we have seen many cases in which very intelligent, highly educated, religious, and experienced politicians and company executives kill, lie, cheat, and steal from innocent people and (sometimes) end up in jail. They have no fear and they have no siila, eventhough they understand kusala and akusala because they listen to preachers and they study religious doctrines. Why? It is because of the lack of restraint, non-transgression, volition, hiri and ottappa. Understanding without support from restraint, non-transgression, volition, concern(hiri) and conscience(ottappa) is NOT strong enough to stop the tide of defilements. Tep === #91910 From: han tun Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: Siila out of fear: was On Virtue (siila) .. Part II ... Escape hantun1 Dear Tep and Nina, My question was a yes-or-no question. [Now, would these children, who observed the five precepts, not with understanding but out of fear, get benefits/kusala or not?] Tep’s answer was a direct one: yes, they would. Nina’s answer was a two-way answer depending on the kusala cittas and akusala cittas that arise alternately very quickly. At one moment it is kusala, and another moment akusala. But at the same time, Nina also said akusala can condition kusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya. So, if I am not mistaken, the answer was a yes-and-no. For me, I would like the answer to be: yes, they would. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel. Anyway, I thank both of you for your kind comments. Respectfully, Han #91911 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - I agree with the gist of much that you say in the following, Nina, but there are points of disagreement as well. In a message dated 10/26/2008 3:36:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, Why is mindfulness of breathing included in the “four applications of mindfulness”, in the section on “mindfulness of the body”? The reason is that any reality can be object of right understanding, also the nåmas and rúpas which appear when there are conditions for mindfulness of breathing. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The rupas that one attends to when meditation is centered on the breath are exactly those that constitute the system we call the breath, and they include earth, air, fire, and water - all four, and centering on bodily sensations. (Disclaimer: Anapanasati doesn't just focus on the breath.) There also, while "meditating," often arise, early on, thoughts of air-flow rising and falling, of chest rising and falling, and so on, but these need to be seen through, for they are not the rupas that need to be looked at as satipatthana, and this stage is not meditation proper. As for why the breath is a good subject, there are several reasons. For one thing, attending to the breath IS very conducive to calm and happy ease, features in turn conducive to mindfulness, concentration, and insight, provided that sufficient viriya is maintained to combat sloth & torpor. Another important aspect of the breath is its being closely tied to emotions and thought, ease in one affecting ease in the other (and likewise for various forms of unease), and its being connected to a variety of other bodily functions, voluntary and involuntary. It is like a body within a body. ----------------------------------------------- Any reality which appears at this moment, be it calm, akusala citta or any other reality, can be the object of right understanding. If one is attached to calm there is attachment, not bhåvanå. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: We almost always start anything with attachment of some degree. The process of mindful attending loosens that attachment. ---------------------------------------------- We may be attached to the calm which can arise while we reflect on the teachings. Reflection on the Dhamma is actually included among the subjects of samatha (Visuddhimagga Ch VII, 68). Reflection on the Dhamma is indispensable in order to understand the meaning of what the Buddha taught. Are we attached to calm while we take part in Dhamma discussions and reflect on the teachings? Do we want more and more of such moments? We should not forget that the goal of the teachings is not calm of the level of samatha but the eradication of defilements through the development of insight. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but with the way to insight being prepared by the temporary dismissal of the hindrances. (One not-too-terrible definition of 'meditation' might well be "the temporary dismissal of the hindrances." ------------------------------------------- Because of clinging to calm we may forget to be mindful of the nåma or rúpa which appears now. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That is more a matter of sloth & torpor than calm. It is a near-enemy of calm. Proper calm supports mindfulness, and it is clearly observable how clarity and presence are enhanced during meditation when genuine calm sets in. With proper calm, thinking subsides, clinging subsides, and it becomes easier and easier to observe without being shaken in any way. ---------------------------------------- Khun Sujin said: “There is seeing now, no calm. Study it now, that is the development of satipatthåna. There should not be attachment to calm. One knows that seeing arises, but is there understanding of it? ----------------------------------- Howard: What is there to be understood about seeing other than it's being impersonal, fleeting, ungraspable, and not self-sufficient? By mindfully attending to actual seeing, this can be directly experienced. The body door, however, is a more suitable gateway for the realization of the tilakkhana and dependent origination than the eye door. ------------------------------------ It is useless to see without understanding, to hear without understanding. ------------------------------------- Howard: It is good to hear about the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and empty nature of phenomena, but far better to directly encounter this tripartite reality. ------------------------------------- When one knows this, one is not involved in wanting to be calm. ---------------------------------------- Howard: A calmed mind is a clearer one. Wanting calm because it "feels good" is not the proper ultimate motivation. But even that motivation, when it leads to the arising of genuine calm will reveal the mind-clearing function of calm. We shouldn't fear the calm and joy of the jhanas. The Buddha unambiguously pointed out that it is not to be feared. For example in MN 36 the Buddha taught: < I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, ...' > ------------------------------------------ No matter how calm one is, without studying and understanding reality as it is, it is useless. It cannot condition satipatthåna.” ------------------------------------------- Howard: If by "studying" dhammas you refer to book study, this is not so. If, however, this means mindfully attending, with calmed mind, to what actually arises in the moment, then, yes, it is essential for the practice of satipatthana and for the arising of wisdom. ------------------------------------------- The goal of the teachings is the understanding of the reality which appears so that ignorance and wrong view will be eliminated. That is why the Buddha always taught about seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, the experiences through the mind-door, about each doorway. Because of ignorance we confuse the different doorways. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Thinking we're seeing when we're hearing? What confusion are you speaking of? ---------------------------------------------- Khun Sujin said that the cure of ignorance is awareness and “study” of the realities which appear. In that way there can be right understanding of all realities as they are. ******* Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard #91912 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:18 am Subject: The Importance of Calm upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & all - The following is from the Anapanasati Sutta: The Seven Factors for Awakening "And how are the four frames of reference developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination? "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[3] In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, persistence is aroused unflaggingly. When persistence is aroused unflaggingly in one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then persistence as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[5] For one enraptured at heart, the body grows calm and the mind grows calm. When the body & mind of an monk enraptured at heart grow calm, then serenity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[6] For one who is at ease — his body calmed — the mind becomes concentrated. When the mind of one who is at ease — his body calmed — becomes concentrated, then concentration as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[7] He carefully watches the mind thus concentrated with equanimity. When he carefully watches the mind thus concentrated with equanimity, equanimity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. Please note in particular the last three. Genuine serenity, not sloth & torpor, provides a field for cultivation of wisdom and release. With metta, Howard #91913 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:45 am Subject: A Quotation on Belief Net that I Like upasaka_howard Hi all - The source aside, if the words turn the mind towards detachment, they are of value: How to cope with wavering thoughts? Versatile are flying clouds, Yet from the sky they’re not apart. Mighty are the ocean’s waves, Yet they are not separate from the sea. Heavy and thick are banks of fog, Yet from the air they’re not apart. Frantic runs the mind in voidness, Yet from the Void it never separates. -Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa With metta, Howard #91914 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:37 am Subject: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. truth_aerator Hi all, "The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.001.than.html Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist! Best wishes, #91915 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and All Well, we got more agreement here than we can shake a stick at. LOL Although this too I'm sure is impermanent. LOL Its not all roses though.... In a message dated 10/26/2008 5:30:40 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Thank you for mentioning it!!! (#91100) > ............ .... .... .... .... > Now, it is my understanding that the Aggregates and > elements ARE what you consider "Dhammas." This > means, the Buddha is calling "Dhammas" -- > insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, > like a conjurer's trick. ... S: Yes, they are empty of self, empty of any substance. They are the basis for atta-sa~n~naa. In other words, without these elements, these dhammas, there would be no mis-construing, no idea of permanence, self, beauty or happiness. For the wise, they are known to be impermanent, empty of self, foul and unsatisfactory. ....................................................... TG: I almost stopped reading here thinking...this is as close as we're going to get and it will veer off into a different "reality" soon. But then I was surprised... ................................................................. .... > Any perception of them would > also be -- insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like > a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. ... S: Yes, the right perception of them is that they are insubstantial, empty of self, like a mirage which deceives the foolish who take there to be substance or self in them. ............................................................... TG: I almost had a mental orgasm at such a spot-on statement as this. Was Sarah on new medication? ... I was thinking. .................................................................. ... >Seems to me a far > cry from "ultimate realities with their own > characteristics. c ... S: Hardness (pathavi dhatu) is an example of an element or the first khandha, rupa. Hardness is different from temperature, for example. It can be experienced directly now and it has the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, like all other conditioned dhammas. ..................................................... TG: "Hardness" (not my favorite term) is different from temperature (also not one of my favorite terms but I'll deal with it in order to not add confusion) ONLY in as much as it is a "different formational outgrowth" due to a different set of conditioning circumstances than temperature. However, the "conditional nature" of the two is the same. There is nothing "inherent" about hardness that is different than temperature. There ARE differences as formational outgrowths, conditions; but those differences are NOT of "their own characteristics." The above is just to clarify the way I see it. .................................................................. ... >And a far cry from a practice that > seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate > realities with their own characteristics. In fact, it seem > 180 degrees opposite the Buddha's teaching. ... S: When you refer to "a practice that seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate realities etc", that sounds more like a practice of attachment to me. ................................................................ TG: EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it sounds this way when YOU use it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the whole point of my complaint with your outlook regarding -- "Dhammas as ultimate Realities with their own characteristics.". ......................................................... In fact, whether or not there is any understanding of dhammas, whether or not a Buddha ever teaches about dhammas or elements, such conditioned dhammas arise and fall away all the time regardless. ........................................................... TG: To me this just sounds like "stock" doctrinal dogma. What I suspect is -- that you don't know why they arise and fall away. And if you did, you'd be much more likely to add the "changing while persisting" clause to what the Buddha taught about changing elements and aggregates. However, THAT clause, highly disrupts your "own characteristic" outlook. I think it is the lack of a comprehensive view as to WHY things are changing that makes your view on conditionality seems so limited, artificial, and skewed to some of us...at least me. .............................................................. I accidentally snipped the rest of the post before responding to one comment. I had quoted from the commentary to SN22:95 "A Lump of Foam" and with regard to this: S: "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic.S ..................................................... TG: This is a horrendously dreadful commentary and THE EXACT REASON that commentaries CANNOT be relied on as authority! It is this kind of faulty commentary that misleads and destroys the Buddha's teaching regarding what the principles of dependent origination entail for phenomena. The quotes at the top of this discussion lays it out so well. And then this kind of comment comes in a destroys it. I think the Buddha would have (mentally) slapped this commentator upside the head. The whole point of the Buddha teaching on the plantain trunk is to show how insubstantial phenomena are...coreless...hollow. This commentary dude comes along and says that every friggin leaf of the damn thing is substantial. Totally missing the point! Why did he miss the point? Because he's too busy looking for "own characteristics." He can't let go. He doesn't understand the relevance of Dependent Origination. (If the commentator was a woman I apologize to men folk around the world.) I will agree to the extent that volitional formations are an assemblage of many phenomena...but I will not agree that these phenomena "have their own characteristic." THAT is wrong. These phenomena do have varying "qualities" that are distinguishable, conditioned, altering, empty, hollow, etc. And that is as far as it should be taken. But once you claim a phenomena has "its own characteristic," it is no longer Buddhism IMO. This point is a very important subtlety. One view "substantiates and sees realities." The other view "insubstantiates and sees relativities." The former view is on the side of attachment. The later view is on the side of detachment. .............................................................................. ....... You replied that you found it a "laughable stretch and wild run of the imagination" and so on. You also have stressed how you've read the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries and have come to your own conclusions. This just proves that we can all read the same materials, but it all comes back to the differing reflections and perceptions and views. ......................................................... TG: It all comes back to conditions. I had read Suttas almost daily for about 18 years before studying Abhidhamma. So it was easier for "red flags" to come up when I saw things that didn't IMO jibe with the Suttas. I have said many times...the commentaries are just that. Comments. They are comments designed to help you understand the Suttas. They can be useful and sometimes are. But they are not to replace or alter the teachings in the Suttas. Some of the commentaries, with altruistic motives I'm sure, have done just that...alter the meanings. A commentary, by its very nature, needs to "add" material to what it is commenting on. With very slight additions of new words here and there, with very slight alterations in meanings, the commentaries, in some cases, have made the Dhamma are much more substantialistic, atomistic, realityistic, attachingistic, endeavor than what is in the Suttas. This is what I object to. TG OUT #91916 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Dear Nina, TG and all, >---Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Alex and TG, >N: I read the posts of both of you. If you find the commentaries >not helpful, do not read them. If it was that simple. The fact is that the Buddhists should help others by pointing out what is Dhamma and what isn't Dhamma. BuddhaDhamma should last as long as possible and one of the ways it can is to use as much authentic suttas as possible. Maybe we should stick to "less" material but more authentic then more material with rogue additions. I believe that Buddha was THE BEST Spiritual Doctor. None of his students could match Him. The suttas are the closest thing we have to what he has said. The Comy is at best 2nd rated material, not historical Buddhavacana, unless it directly quotes the suttas. How do we know about those commentators attainments AND understanding of the suttas? They *may* have made mistakes or emphasized what Buddha wouldn't emphasized. Little by little, century after century, millenia after milleniam and we have soo much material on Buddhism 90% of which was "that commentator said so and so". Even if what such and such commentator says is right, it doesn't make it right for us. Infact it may halve our progress and teach us to use crutches rather than our own development of panna, dhammavicaya and so on. Considering how Dhamma is about "letting go" I don't think that collecting gathering and holding dozens of Dhamma books is such a dhammic activity. IMHO. >We read in the suttas about D.O. but it is very concise and brief. Is that a bad thing? Do you expect to get a PhD degree, publish papers, achieve Doctorate, become a Buddhist World Renown expert, in order to Achieve Arhatship? >I am glad to study the Vis. and tiika to help me to relate D.O. to >the actuality of daily life. We read about old age and death and it >is good to be reminded that there is momentary death, the arising >and falling away of citta at each moment, also now. Should we not >know this moment? I am grateful for all the help I can get, and I >need a lot of help. Dhamma MUST be seen for oneself, by oneself. If one has to refer to some books rather than experience happening NOW, then there is something wrong. Maybe the reason why suttas are so concise is that they are guidelines for development and finding out for oneself? After all, you will NEVER feel satisfied by reading the Menu, rather than eating the food. Best wishes, #91917 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/26/2008 1:37:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi all, "The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.001.than.html Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist! Best wishes, =============================== This is interesting. Note, though, that right view is wisdom (or at least wisdom-based) and wrong view is ignorance (or at least ignorance-based). There is no such thing as "wrong wisdom," which is even crazy to say. I suspect that "wrong mindfulness" is simply atta-oriented and tanha-oriented attention and is not what I would call a genuine mindfulness at all. It is a counterfeit mindfulness, just as lust is counterfeit love. With metta, Howard #91918 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... truth_aerator Hi Howard, Scott and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >I suspect that "wrong mindfulness" is simply atta-oriented and > tanha-oriented attention and is not what I would call a genuine >mindfulness at all. It is a counterfeit mindfulness, just as lust >is counterfeit love. > Both lust and love are greed based, although love is a better and lesser craving-based. Re: Mindfulness. I guess that the wrong mindfulness is that mindfulness found in a thief, like wrong concentration may be a concentrated mind of the sniper. Best wishes, #91919 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries TGrand458@... Hi Nina Hope you are well. In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:05:41 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Alex and TG, Op 25-okt-2008, om 21:21 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Who wants to rely on such commentator and > such commentary? > > I'd like to stick to the suttas which are visibile HERE AND NOW, > TIMELESS, to be visible by and for oneself, leading onward and so on. ------- N: I read the posts of both of you. If you find the commentaries not helpful, do not read them. .............................................. TG: You say you read my stuff but if that's so, you'd know that I often remarks that there are many useful things in the commentaries. I haven't been reading much commentaries for awhile. The closest thing was probably a reading of the Visuddhimagga 3 years ago. So I guess I'm taking your advice anyway. ..................................................... TG, you spoke about flagrant mistakes, and before I discussed a point with you but it did not come over very convincing what you said. ............................................................ TG: Since I don't know what you're talking about, I can't very well defend myself. However, in a post today to Sarah, I do point out a commentarial comment I highly reject. Maybe you be willing to look at that and see if my comments are convincing and if not, tell me why? ......................................................... If there is a subject in the Co. you find interesting we can discuss, but no need if you are not interested. When you find something incomprehensible, it may also be that you yourself do not understand the point, possible? .......................................................... TG: Of course its possible Nina. I can't claim for certain my outlook is correct until I reach arahatship. Almost certainly it isn't on the mark and needs adjusting. Is it possible you haven't fully understood the implications of "Dependent Arising"? And why the Buddha would say they the aggregates were hollow, coreless, like a mirage, etc.? Is it possible a view of "Dhammas as ultimate realities with their own characteristics" is not what the Buddha had in mind....especially considering that he didn't say such a thing? Does his silence on that give you "pause"? Your teachings seem to so highly emphasis "turning toward conditioned phenomena." The Buddha's teaching emphasized "turning away from conditioned phenomena." Is that a convincing argument that something is askew? Finding something incomprehensible and disagreeing are two different things. They may or may not overlap. Or someone may find something comprehensible and that comprehension, or the teaching thereof, may be totally off the mark. In the final analysis, what is on the mark is what results in detachment and freedom from suffering. The teaching I follow says freedom is doable here and now in this lifetime. Your teaching seems to say "look, look at the here and now," but freedom is way way off in the future. That latter is a "let down" to me. ............................................................................. I am glad to read commentaries in Pali, because only few texts we have in English. I also have the Thai to help me. We read in the suttas about D.O. but it is very concise and brief. I am glad to study the Vis. and tiika to help me to relate D.O. to the actuality of daily life. We read about old age and death and it is good to be reminded that there is momentary death, the arising and falling away of citta at each moment, also now. Should we not know this moment? I am grateful for all the help I can get, and I need a lot of help. .......................................................... TG: I'm glad the commentaries help you. We read about old age and death in the Suttas all the time too. That's the source for your materials on the same subject. Has it occurred to you that your "vision of Dhammas" is not in accordance with actuality? But merely a "mental model" of the way things are? Surely I don't deny that you are mindful of your experiences, but do you really know what those experiences are? TG OUT #91920 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/26/2008 11:37:57 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi all, "The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood..action... In one of wr livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness.mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentra _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.001.than.html) Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist! Best wishes, ..................................................... Hi Alex, All That's a good find for this topic. In the Eightfold Path we have "Right Mindfulness" which implies there is a wrong mindfulness....as shown here by Alex. But this goes along with my understanding that "mindfulness" (or right mindfulness) is associated with wholesome qualities particularly those dealing with conditionality, impermanence, affliction (in relation to Dhamma), and nonself. For "insight oriented mindfulness" is the most wholesome kind of mindfulness. However, I do think that when "mindfulness" is addressed in the Suttas, the overwhelming implication is that it is "Right Mindfulness" that is being referred to. TG OUT #91921 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 26-okt-2008, om 12:10 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Sorry, rambled off on the proliferation about kids and diets. ------ N: Hah,hah, Just enjoyed this very much. Teaching Dhamma to kids without mentioning the word Dhamma. Lovely! Nina. #91922 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Importance of Calm nilovg Hi Howard, It is interesting how different translations highlight different things.Below another one and some of my remarks I posted long ago. Thanks for your other post, and I shall give attention to it later on. So many oints you raise, I may select a few. Op 26-okt-2008, om 16:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The following is from the Anapanasati Sutta: > > The Seven Factors for Awakening > "And how are the four frames of reference developed & pursued so as > to bring > the seven factors for awakening to their culmination? > "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of > itself ardent, alert, & mindful putting aside greed & distress > with reference > to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without > lapse. > When his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as > a factor > for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes > to the > culmination of its development. ------- N: Other translation: We read in the Anapanasati Sutta, (in the translation by Ven. Nyanatiloka, but abridged): <1. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world- on that occasion, unremitting mindfulness is established in him...on that occasion the mindfulness enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him. 2. Abiding thus mindful, he investigates, examines that state with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it)... on that occasion the investigation-of-states (dhamma vivaya) enlightenment is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 3.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who investigates, examines that state (dhamma) with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it), tireless energy is aroused... on that occasion the energy enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 4. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who has aroused energy, unworldly (niramisa, not involved with the senses) rapture arises... The body and mind of one whose mind is held in rapture, becomes tranquillized. 5.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, the body and mind of a bhikkhu who is held in rapture, become tranquillized- on that occasion the tranquillity enlightenment factor is aroused in him... The mind of one who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated. 6. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, mind of a bhikkhu who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated- on that occasion the concentration enlightenment factor is aroused in him... He becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated. 7. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated- on that occasion the equanimity enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him.> The same is stated with regard to the other three applications of mindfulness. The Co. to this sutta (ven. Nyanatiloka):... The Co. the uses a simile of a charioteer and horses which are advancing evenly, not overrunning nor holding back. Evenso is equanimity. We then read: N: The enlightenment factors are included in the fourth Application of Mindfulness, contemplating dhammas in dhammas. They should not be taken for self. We read in the Co to the Satipatthana Sutta (tr. by ven. Soma) about the conditions for the enlightenment factors, and among them is . We read about right reflection in the section on the hindrance of covetousness: This is not merely thinking, it is deeply considering and contemplating with mindfulness of the object that appears and right understanding of its characteristic. We read more about this kind of reflection in the , V, Mah-vagga, Kindred Sayings on the Limbs of Wisdom, Ch IV, 8, Restraint and Hindrance. The enlightenment factors are translated here as Limbs of Wisdom. We read: ... At the time, monks, when the Ariyan disciple makes the Norm (Dhamma) his object, gives attention to it, with all his mind considers it, with ready ear listens to the Norm,- at such time the five hindrances exist not in him, at such time these seven limbs of wisdom by cultivation go to fulfilment.> It all begins with listening, considering, and then there are conditions for mindfulness and direct understanding of whatever reality appears. There should be equanimity, evenmindedness and impartiality towards the object that appears. No matter whether the object is greatly disturbing, it can be object of mindfulness. It is conditioned and it has no owner. The enlightenment factors are most important and they should not be neglected. We read in the same section of the Kindred Sayings, Ch II, 8, neglected and undertaken: -------- Nina. #91923 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. nilovg Hi Alex, Op 26-okt-2008, om 18:37 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist! ------ N: Ii is given as a factor of the wrong path, but then it represents not sati cetasika, but lack of mindfulness, often it stands for lobha. Nina. #91924 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries nilovg Dear Alex, Op 26-okt-2008, om 18:50 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Dhamma MUST be seen for oneself, by oneself. If one has to refer to > some books rather than experience happening NOW, then there is > something wrong. Maybe the reason why suttas are so concise is that > they are guidelines for development and finding out for oneself? ------- N: Often I found it hard to understand what is meant in a short sutta. Instead of phantasying, I rather investigate the ancient tradition. But debating is not of much use. Nina. #91925 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... nilovg Hi Howard, yes, this is well expressed. Nina. Op 26-okt-2008, om 18:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I suspect that "wrong mindfulness" is simply atta-oriented and > tanha-oriented attention and is not what I would call a genuine > mindfulness at all. It > is a counterfeit mindfulness, just as lust is counterfeit love. #91926 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:46 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist!" SN 45 1(1), Bh. Bodhi (trans): "Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamefulness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs up. For one of wrong view, wrong intention springs up. For one of wrong intention, wrong speech springs up. For one of wrong speech, wrong action springs up. For one of wrong action, wrong livelihood springs up. For one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort springs up. For one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness springs up. For one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration springs up." "Avijjaa, bhikkhave, pubba"ngamaa akusalaana.m dhammaana.m samaapattiyaa, anvadeva ahirikaṃ anottappa.m . Avijjaagatassa, bhikkhave, aviddasuno micchaadi.t.thi pahoti; micchaadi.t.thissa micchaasa"nkappo pahoti; micchaasa"nkappassa micchaavaacaa pahoti; micchaavaacassa micchaakammanto pahoti; micchaakammantassa micchaaaajiivo pahoti; micchaaaajiivassa micchaavaayaamo pahoti; micchaavaayaamassa micchaasati pahoti; micchaasatissa micchaasamaadhi pahoti." Note 1: "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, as a conascent condtion (sahajaatavasena, a condtion for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states). Spk-p.t: It is a forerunner by way of conascence when it makes associated states conform to its own mode of confusion about the object, so that they grasp impermanent phenomena as permanent, etc.; it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support when a person overcome by delusion engages in immoral actions. Shamelessness (ahirika) has the characteristic of lack of shame (alajjanaa, or lack of conscience regarding evil); fearlessness of wrongdoing (anottappa), the characteristic of lack of fear (abhaayanaa, regarding evil conduct)." Scott: Sati is a mental factor (cetasika) and one only limited to kusala states - sati can only arise with kusala citta. In the sutta extract, the focus is on states which arise with ignorance (avijja) as a 'forerunner'. The Commentary is clear to explain that this ('forerunner') refers to sahajaata-paccaya and upanissaya-paccaya. Avijjaa (ignorance, also a mental factor) arising with citta makes it impossible for sati to arise at the same time. When one thinks of sati as something other than a cetasika arising consascently with only certain kinds of citta (kusala), taking the same object of that citta, and then falling away with that citta - when one thinks of sati as a quasi-permanent 'state of mind' in the conventional sense - then one is apt think that 'mindfulness' conditioned by ignorance is the same as sati-cetasika. Sincerely, Scott. #91927 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. truth_aerator Dear Scott, > "Scott" wrote: > > Shamelessness (ahirika) has the characteristic of lack of shame > (alajjanaa, or lack of conscience regarding evil); fearlessness of > wrongdoing (anottappa), the characteristic of lack of fear > (abhaayanaa, regarding evil conduct)." A lot of talk, who knows what about. > Scott: Sati is a mental factor (cetasika) and one only limited to > kusala states - sati can only arise with kusala citta. Samma-sati, sure, is Kusala. But just as there can be mindfulness of "robbery", there can be also mindfulness of satipatthana, anatta, anicca, and so on. Regarding all this talk about cetasikas and so on. Do you have direct perception of them? If you do, would you be so kind and give me strong causal conditions for arising them in me? Thank you in advance, Best wishes, #91928 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > ------- > N: Often I found it hard to understand what is meant in a short > sutta. Instead of phantasying, Understand in what way? Maybe Buddha didn't want to teach PhD course in Dhamma? It wasn't his type of a thing. He often refused to answer speculative questions because they weren't relevant to suffering here and now and to reaching Nibbana. > I rather investigate the ancient > tradition. But debating is not of much use. > Nina. Which one? There were like 20 of them. Besides, there was only ONE Buddha. His teaching was recorded in the Suttas. Best wishes, #91929 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:57 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Samma-sati, sure, is Kusala. But just as there can be mindfulness of 'robbery', there can be also mindfulness of satipatthana, anatta, anicca, and so on. Regarding all this talk about cetasikas and so on. Do you have direct perception of them? If you do, would you be so kind and give me strong causal conditions for arising them in me?" Scott: In the four minutes which intervened between the posting my response and the above, what could you have possibly considered? Please continue to think of things as you wish. Sincerely, Scott. #91930 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/26/2008 2:43:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Both lust and love are greed based, although love is a better and lesser craving-based. ============================ I had metta in mind by "love". With metta, Howard #91931 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? gazita2002 Hello Howard, thank you, I think you may be right about the 2nd statement. I like the Sutta you have quoted. A very 'visual' sutta IMHO patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Azita (and Ken) - > > In a message dated 10/20/2008 2:55:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > gazita2002@... writes: > > ... there must be some degree of panna to know that we are fools > simply because we arent arahants. > ========================== > There's an old saying I like - I don't recall the source - that is along > the following lines: > > He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool - shun him. > He who knows not but knows that he knows not can learn - teach him. > He who knows but knows not that he knows is asleep - awaken him. > He who knows and knows that he knows is wise - follow him. > > With metta, > Howard > > P. S. I think the 2nd of these four adages matches up with what you said, > Azita. > > /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains " going far, > its current swift, carrying everything with it " and a man would open channels > leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the > river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its > current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same > way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that > overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, > sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is > without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own > benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what > is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly > noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ > > (From the Avarana Sutta) #91932 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles ... truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 10/26/2008 2:43:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Both lust and love are greed based, although love is a better and > lesser craving-based. > > ============================ > I had metta in mind by "love". > > With metta, > Howard > Ok, then metta is non-hatred. Best wishes, #91933 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa jonoabb Hi Han Thanks for coming back again. > As regards the Buddha teaching these gradual training to the persons who are ready for enlightenment, I only wonder whether these teachings are useless to people like me who would never be ready for enlightenment in this life. > Upali (for example) had developed insight and the paramis in previous lives to the point where he was ready for enlightenment in that lifetime. But he had not as yet in that lifetime heard the teaching about dhammas, the 3 characteristics, the development of insight, the 4 Nobel Truths, Dependent Origination, etc. The gradual discourse was the way of preparing the mind of such a person to hear about those things. The teaching on the gradual discourse helps us to understand how reflecting on things heard can condition the arising of kusala (of course, the nature and level of that kusala would be in accordance with our accumulated tendencies of the same kusala). It also helps us to understand the importance of developing kusala of all kinds as a support for the development of insight. However, as I see it, this teaching is not being given here by the Buddha as a kind of practice to be followed in order (just my view, of course). > As regards the Noble Eightfold Path being a moment of path consciousness about to be attained by the listener, rather than as an 8-step program for development towards that (very imminent) path moment, I think you are talking about the Buddha's time. What about today? Do you still think that today also the Noble Eightfold Path is a moment of path consciousness and not an 8-step program for development towards that path moment? > Whatever it was then, it must be now also ;-)) Jon #91934 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:04 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome, or wholesome. truth_aerator Dear Scott, >"Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > Scott: In the four minutes which intervened between the posting my > response and the above, what could you have possibly considered? > > Please continue to think of things as you wish. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. I have asked a fair question regarding mindfulness. Both in the suttas and in real life mindfulness may be either kusala or akusala. Even the Buddha has talked about SAMMA-sati and MICHA-sati. Just like everything else (samadhi, ditthi) there has to be Right (samma) one rather than wrong or mistaken one. Sometimes when I ask basic question and get very unnecceserily technical reply, it feels as though someone is trying to pull a wool over my eyes. Here are some definitions of mindfulness: "In psychology, the term mindfulness refers to two different concepts. The first deals with attention, and is a phenomenon of a high level of conscious awareness of some or all of one's bodily states, sensations, consciousness, and environment. The second is a dimension of thinking based on active differentiation and refinement of existing categories, creation of new categories, and a nuanced appreciation for context." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology) As you see, the above can be used in negative and positive ways. Best wishes, #91935 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen..." Scott: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine. Of course, resorting to experience is a rather unassailable argument. ;-) The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion? Sincerely, Scott. #91936 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:36 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi Scott, Howard and all > The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) > has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read > this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you > have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the > assertion? "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html metta, phil #91937 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Dear Scott, > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Howard: "...It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome > states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my > experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is >seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen..." > > Scott: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been > presented so its fine. Of course, resorting to experience is a rather > unassailable argument. ;-) The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) > has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read > this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you > have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the > assertion? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. If I may add my 2 cents. If sati is 'always' wholesome, then how can it be mindful of unwholesome states which cannot coexist with sati? Best wishes, #91938 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:40 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome, or wholesome. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "I have asked a fair question regarding mindfulness. Both in the suttas and in real life mindfulness may be either kusala or akusala. Even the Buddha has talked about SAMMA-sati and MICHA-sati. Just like everything else (samadhi, ditthi) there has to be Right (samma) one rather than wrong or mistaken one. Sometimes when I ask basic question and get very unnecceserily technical reply, it feels as though someone is trying to pull a wool over my eyes." Scott: What you refer to as 'mindfulness' is not what I consider to be sati. Sati is clearly defined in the Abhidhamma, clearly explained in the Commentaries, and this is what I choose to stay with. There is no need for you to do so. I would recommend that you take the time to do. No one is 'trying to pull the wool over [your] eyes', Alex. As to 'a fair question' - your mind already made up. This is clear to any reader. The 'question' is not, in my opinion, a question at all. It is a rhetorical question. You make clear the chosen source of your definition of 'mindfulness' below. Wikipedia is the resource of no resort, as far as I'm concerned. A: "'Here are some definitions of mindfulness: In psychology, the term mindfulness refers to two different concepts. The first deals with attention, and is a phenomenon of a high level of conscious awareness of some or all of one's bodily states, sensations, consciousness, and environment. The second is a dimension of thinking based on active differentiation and refinement of existing categories, creation of new categories, and a nuanced appreciation for context.' As you see, the above can be used in negative and positive ways." Scott: How one who so forcefully and dogmatically proclaims the 'sutta only' perspective can go to Wikipedia for a definition of 'mindfulness' I'll never know, Alex. And how one can choose the mundane and worldly definitions of 'psychology' over the Abhidhamma or the Commentaries in a consideration of Dhamma is also remarkable. It is just this sort of blind eclecticism and ad hoc proliferation of ideas that characterizes the 'sutta only' approach. One is free, when one goes to the suttas aided only by one's peripatetic imagination to construe any sort of fantastic conclusions one wishes. Again, please feel free to adopt whatever source you wish to shore up whatever view happens to structure the way the Dhamma seems to you. I'm saying so because, of course, I do the same - we just choose different sources. If, by chance, you feel intellectually intimidated by the Abhidhamma or the Commentarial literature, a bit of persistence and careful consideration is all that is required to slowly make sense of things as explained from that domain. I'd recommend such a course, if you wish to answer any 'fair' question. Sincerely, Scott. #91939 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, There it is: Me: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine...Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion?" Scott: Asked and answered as the lawyers say. Sincerely, Scott. #91940 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi again Sorry, I erased the accompanying message by mistake. It was of no import, but it's nice to say something in addition to posting a sutta passage. "As I noticed X, it subsided." That must surely be wisdom having the functin of dispelling unwholesome states. But suttas are never as obvious as they seem, apparently... metta, phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html > > #91941 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...If sati is 'always' wholesome, then how can it be mindful of unwholesome states which cannot coexist with sati?" Scott: Consider studying the citta-viithi as described in the Abhidhamma. This will show when sati can arise and what sort of object it can take. I can predict that your response will be to denigrate the source you are being referred to and demonstrate the lack of genuineness inherent in the question. If, by chance, I'm wrong about this, please feel free to go to the Useful Posts section under 'Process of cittas'. I'd be happy to learn more of this material with you. Sincerely, Scott. #91942 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:52 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for this. As I was saying to Scott the other day, I'm finding it impossible to read long posts these days for some reason. But I'll bookmark it and hopefully read it someday. metta, phil -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil & all, > > I stated to reply to one of your posts a long time back, #91943 From: han tun Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:59 pm Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa hantun1 Dear Jon, Thank you very much for your reply. > > Han: As regards the Buddha teaching these gradual training to the persons who are ready for enlightenment, I only wonder whether these teachings are useless to people like me who would never be ready for enlightenment in this life. > Jon: Upali (for example) had developed insight and the paramis in previous lives to the point where he was ready for enlightenment in that lifetime. But he had not as yet in that lifetime heard the teaching about dhammas, the 3 characteristics, the development of insight, the 4 Nobel Truths, Dependent Origination, etc. The gradual discourse was the way of preparing the mind of such a person to hear about those things. The teaching on the gradual discourse helps us to understand how reflecting on things heard can condition the arising of kusala (of course, the nature and level of that kusala would be in accordance with our accumulated tendencies of the same kusala). It also helps us to understand the importance of developing kusala of all kinds as a support for the development of insight. However, as I see it, this teaching is not being given here by the Buddha as a kind of practice to be followed in order (just my view, of course). Han: You did not answer my question directly. My question was based on your following remark: [They are mentioned in the suttas, but to my knowledge they appear only in the context of a talk given by the Buddha to persons who are ready for enlightenment.] So my question was whether such a talk i.e., the gradual training is useful for a person who is not yet ready for enlightenment or not? Yes or no! But your answer was a general one. The gradual discourse was the way of preparing the mind of such a person to hear about those things, and the teaching on the gradual discourse helps us to understand how reflecting on things heard can condition the arising of kusala, and so on. I notice that you have also avoided the words “gradual training.” You used, instead, the words “gradual discourse.” I think you are disagreeable to any kind of “training.” But, never mind. I will leave it at that. ================ > > Han: As regards the Noble Eightfold Path being a moment of path consciousness about to be attained by the listener, rather than as an 8-step program for development towards that (very imminent) path moment, I think you are talking about the Buddha's time. What about today? Do you still think that today also the Noble Eightfold Path is a moment of path consciousness and not an 8-step program for development towards that path moment? > Jon: Whatever it was then, it must be now also ;-)) Han: By your above answer, I take it that you still think that today also the Noble Eightfold Path is a moment of path consciousness and not an 8-step program for development towards that path moment. I do not agree, but I respect your opinion, and I will also leave it at that. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #91944 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:56 am Subject: Re: Sati, always wholesome? truth_aerator Dear Scott, The robber is "mindful" of whatever is arising at that moment. Of course that attention, concentration, non-forgetfulness, mindfulness and so on - is unwholesome. #91945 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... Hi Alex, Scott, All In a message dated 10/26/2008 3:47:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Sati is a mental factor (cetasika) and one only limited to kusala states - sati can only arise with kusala citta. In the sutta extract, the focus is on states which arise with ignorance (avijja) as a 'forerunner'a 'forerunner'. The Commentary is clear t ('forerunner'('forerunner') refers to sahajaata-paccaya and up Avijjaa (ignorance, also a mental factor) arising with citta makes it impossible for sati to arise at the same time. ............................................................ TG: The commentaris sometimes seem hell-bent on making things fit into very specific categories. My first inclination when Alex posted the Sutta that mentioned "wrong mindfulness" was to say that 'wrong mindfulness' was 'no mindfulness.' Because in the Suttas mindfulness almost always is considered wholesome and on the side of enlightenment...and usually used in that way. But then I thought about it and considered that the Suttas have flexibility and terms like mindfulness, insight, Dhamma, sankhara, and many others often have multifaceted meanings and usages. There is no "stiff" -- 'this only means that' -- in the Suttas. The Suttas require a delicate sensibility to inculcate their messages correctly. So even though 'mindfulness' almost always deal with wholesome states, I have to accept that the Buddha taught "wrong mindfulness" and 'wrong mindfulness' CAN ONLY deal with unwholesome states IMO. Therefore, I now think that "mindfulness" can also be a monitoring of unwholesome actions and associated with unwholesome actions. (Though extremely rare usage.) And though I've read these Suttas many times before, I haven't thought about them in this context and I thank Alex for pointing them out. At the very least its mind provoking and does not call for a terse dismissal. It also raises questions about the rigid categorization seen in the commentaries and whether such rigidity may also lead to poor interpretations. Whatever it was that Scott said above, and whatever excuses the commentaries tried to make, it can't erase the Sutta that described "wrong mindfulness." TG OUT #91946 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path kenhowardau Hi Tep, -------- T: > I am glad to discuss the fourth noble truth with you. -------- And I with you! It really doesn't matter if we suspect the other person's motives, does it? Let's continue discussing the 8-fold path as best we can. -------------------------- T: > It is kusala; attempting to win a silly debate is not. -------------------------- It is indeed! One might wonder, however, why a discussion is suddenly called a "silly debate!" :-) But that's not important now, let's just discuss the Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------- > > KH: Anatta is the term found the Tipitaka that tells us there is no free will. As I tried to explain before, free will is something that belongs in the illusory world of atta. T: > It is your right to think and explain whatever, but it is not what the Buddha or the arahants explained. Use the Suttanta and Abhidhamma pitakas to support your answer, please. Did they explain what "free will" was and give its meaning in regard to 'anatta' ? ----------------------------------------------- I have no doubt they explain "all dhammas are anatta." That means the real world is very different from a world of atta (a world of persisting things) doesn't it? Free will, as I understand it, can belong only in a world of persisting things. ------------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> T: Since I never heard of, and never found "momentary, ultimately real, world" in the Tipitaka, there is no way I can relate "The world Lord; what is meant by the world?" to that unheard, unknown "momentary, ultimately real, world", Ken. Help me to understand you, please. But feel free to drop the issue if you are unable to write clearly. -------------------------------------------------------------- I may not be the clearest writer at DSG, but I write clearly enough. If you would just soften your hardline stance (the one that says the Buddha did not teach no-self) you would have no trouble understanding me. --------------------------------------- T: > You put Alex's words in my mouth when you said, "You will forever be asking, 'But if [so-and-so] says there is no control how can he cross a street safely? Why doesn't he walk into trees, jump under a train . . . (etc., etc.).' ". >>>KH: Your question was: > > I am confused. Jon does not believe in an effort to "do" anything, let alone explaining. Isn't explaining something you "do" verbally? > > >>> How is that any different from Alex's questions? T: > They are very different. I did not talk about controlling actions like Alex did; I was asking you to tell me if you thought "explaining something" was not doing a verbal action. This is critical to show that 'doing' is an 'action', a kamma. Cetana is kamma. --------------------------------------- When you say Jon does not believe in an "effort to do anything," I assume by "effort" you must be referring to free will. As Jon has explained on countless occasions, he does believe in effort (viriya- cetasika). Viriya accompanies every action (cetana). There is no doubt about that. So what are you objecting to? Surely, you must be objecting to the assertion that there is no free will! To the best of my memory (I can't be bothered looking for it) you told Suan that Jon would not explain anything because he didn't believe in effort - including the effort to explain. Isn't that on the same level as saying, "Jon doesn't believe in trees so why doesn't he walk into one?" ------------------------- T: > Thank you very much (really -- no sarcasm) ------------------------- Wot, no backhanded compliments? :-) ---------------- > for giving a straightforward reply to my simple question "Which suttas?", concerning your assertion : "Right understanding conditions right effort." >KH: The Mahacattartka Sutta for one: "Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components is called right concentration. As to this, right understanding comes first . . ." (end quote) >If the suttas aren't clear enough the Abhidhamma explains how right understanding comes first and is the forerunner of the path factors. T: The sutta is clear, but you explanation based on it is not clear. How could right understanding, a path factor, come first without an effort to abandon wrong view and develop right view from the beginning? ------------------- Well, my explanation was at least consistent with the sutta. Your explanation said the opposite of the sutta, didn't it? Weren't you saying right-understanding could not be the forerunner - could not come first? But let's stick to just one topic. There will be no disagreement when you finally relinquish your hardline stance on anatta. :-) Meanwhile just one topic at a time will be best. Ken H #91947 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Hi Scott, >Scott: >I've noticed that, when it comes to those who present their own views >which differ from the standard of this list, any challenge to these >views elicits a huge huff in which one or the other eventually goes >off. I'd predict that, upon reading this, you'll do the same. Its as >if no one is allowed to question these non-standard views, presented >(freely and without restraint) on a list devoted to views which are >often the direct opposite. Why would one not expect to have a >discussion that is very polarized? Why not just continue to discuss? Personally I've tried to quote as many suttas as possible and to reference what I've said. Unfortunately some people here believe in a certain teacher living lay life and 25 centuries later to be able to explain Buddha Dhamma better than Buddha himself. I believe that it is pure heresy to believe that some commentator can teach BuddhaDhamma better than Buddha himself. Furthermore, just because one (out of 20) early Buddhist traditions has survived doesn't give it any monopoly on truth. In fact in some discources the Buddha himself has stated: "Don't go by tradition..." The Buddha was the best, none of the best Arahants could match him in teaching ability. He didn't even allow Ven. Sariputta to be the leader. It is insulting to every Buddhist to claim that such and such a monk can explain Buddha't teaching better than the Man Himself. No wonder some Buddhist are offended and are compassionate enough toward those unlucky fellow who hurt themselves and others when it comes to Buddhas teaching. It is very slanderous to Bhagavat to imply that he couldn't explain it in a clearest possible manner and that it would need commentary. Buddha himself in DN16 has stated that whatever monk or group of monks say, it must be checked with the Suttas. This is how a good teaching is ruined. It is gradually mixed with the works of the disciples who sometimes make mistakes. At first there is little adhamma, but over time (like 1,000 years) substantial wrong additions can be made and eventually eclipse the original teaching making it almost unrecognizable. It is no surprise that some people who start with the commentaries find suttas so difficult. No wonder. If the commentaries teach & emphasize one thing and the Buddha's teaching another, no wonder why suttas are so difficult! It is also questionable to rely on unnamed commentators. How do we know that they aren't being mistaken? How do we know that those unnamed elders aren't of Sati, Arittha, Devadatta, Udayin kind? There is one famous commentator living 1000 years later than the Buddha who has wrote a famous commentarial work with which he has hoped to earn enough merit to be able to meet the next Buddha and achieve awakening there. Wow. Here we have a Venerable monk implying that the methods current in his time didn't or couldn't lead him to awakening then and there. Who wants to rely on such commentator and such commentary? I'd like to stick to the suttas where Buddha Dhamma is visibile HERE AND NOW, TIMELESS, to be visible by and for oneself, leading onward and so on. RE: Abhidhamma, "Too much Dhamma". In a certain sutta the Buddha has stated that what he taught was like the leaves in has hand vs the amount of leaves in the forest? Why did he teach so little? Because the rest is un needed, unnecessarily, do not lead to dispassion, disenchantment and so on. There is entire samyutta where the Buddha and his students refuse to answer a number of speculative/philosophical questions which were common to wanderers of those times? And why? Because those questions are unbeneficial and do not lead to Nibbana. Remember the parable of the Arrow? Modern day example. In order to drive a car you do not need a degree in Physics, Chemistry, mechanics, electronics and so on. Your knowledge of chemical composition of oil, of the refinery where it was refined, etc etc is un needed. You do NOT need to know such minute and irrelevant details such as how much transistors (or whatever) there are in the car in order to drive it. You don't need to know the chemical composition of all the steel alloys, rubber, leather and other things found in the car. You don't need to know calculus, etc etc. If you tried to learn everything you could about working of the car, that would take entire lifetime and you'd never have the time to drive it! "Conventional" , rough and basic knowledge will do just fine, as it has for millions of drivers who do not have PhD in Electronics, physics, chemistry and so on. Paralysis by analysis. Best wishes, #91948 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Dear Scott, >"Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...If sati is 'always' wholesome, then how can it be mindful of > unwholesome states which cannot coexist with sati?" > > Scott: Consider studying the citta-viithi as described in the > Abhidhamma. From what I've read, it is found in the Commentaries to the Abhidhamma. If citta-viithi is found in the suttas, please tell me where. I'd like to read about it. > This will show when sati can arise and what sort of object it can >take. How is this different from Satipatthana sutta where it says that sati can be of hindrances (unwholesome states!) Best wishes, #91949 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "If citta-viithi is found in the suttas, please tell me where. I'd like to read about it." Scott: As predicted... Sincerely, Scott. #91950 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:12 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path abhidhammika Dear Ken, Tep, and Alex How are you? Ken wrote: "I'll won't go into it any further just now. I don't want to disrupt the original discussion between Suan and Jon." Thank you for your kind understanding. The thread 'Enter The Abhidhammika!' was started to introduce a new approach in this group. Even though I called it a new approach in the context of this group, it was what the Buddha called, and used, Vibhajjavaadii method, so it was a 600-BC approach, really. The professional Theavada Abhidhammikas also use this Vibhajjavaadii method throughout the long history of more than 2,500 years whenever they need to expose the true identity of paravaadiis (holders of outside views). Conversely, abhidhammikas may also use this method to find out if a view was an outside view or otherwise. The present thread `Enter The Abhidhammika!' on this occasion was also initiated to find out if Jon's statements advocate outside views or not. As Tep, Alex and Ken would have already noticed, Jon and like-minded people have shown remarkable attachment to their personal conclusions as Jon put it. Even though they were presented with suttas evidences contradicting their attanomati (personal conclusions or opinions), they seemed to be unable to relinquish their deep attachment to the latter. So, I thought, how about offering Vibhajjavaada treatment to Jon's attanomati statements by starting a special thread! This thread `Enter The Abhidhammika!' is not suitable for an on- going never-ending back-and-forth debates. Therefore, Ken, Tep and Alex, please kindly give Jon a chance to handle Vibhajjavaada treatment on his own. Please do not pre-empt his moves. And, Ken, Tep and Alex, if you need to sort out your differences, please create another relevant thread and conduct your debates there. Thanks in advance. Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #91951 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This settles it. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Wrong mindfulness (sati) can exist!" SN 45 1(1), Bh. Bodhi (trans): "Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamefulness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs up. For one of wrong view, wrong intention springs up. For one of wrong intention, wrong speech springs up. For one of wrong speech, wrong action springs up. For one of wrong action, wrong livelihood springs up. For one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort springs up. For one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness springs up. For one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration springs up." "Avijjaa, bhikkhave, pubba"ngamaa akusalaana.m dhammaana.m samaapattiyaa, anvadeva ahirikaṃ anottappa.m . Avijjaagatassa, bhikkhave, aviddasuno micchaadi.t.thi pahoti; micchaadi.t.thissa micchaasa"nkappo pahoti; micchaasa"nkappassa micchaavaacaa pahoti; micchaavaacassa micchaakammanto pahoti; micchaakammantassa micchaaaajiivo pahoti; micchaaaajiivassa micchaavaayaamo pahoti; micchaavaayaamassa micchaasati pahoti; micchaasatissa micchaasamaadhi pahoti." Note 1: "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, as a conascent condtion (sahajaatavasena, a condtion for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states). Spk-p.t: It is a forerunner by way of conascence when it makes associated states conform to its own mode of confusion about the object, so that they grasp impermanent phenomena as permanent, etc.; it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support when a person overcome by delusion engages in immoral actions. Shamelessness (ahirika) has the characteristic of lack of shame (alajjanaa, or lack of conscience regarding evil); fearlessness of wrongdoing (anottappa), the characteristic of lack of fear (abhaayanaa, regarding evil conduct)." Scott: Sati is a mental factor (cetasika) and one only limited to kusala states - sati can only arise with kusala citta. In the sutta extract, the focus is on states which arise with ignorance (avijja) as a 'forerunner'. The Commentary is clear to explain that this ('forerunner') refers to sahajaata-paccaya and upanissaya-paccaya. Avijjaa (ignorance, also a mental factor) arising with citta makes it impossible for sati to arise at the same time. When one thinks of sati as something other than a cetasika arising consascently with only certain kinds of citta (kusala), taking the same object of that citta, and then falling away with that citta - when one thinks of sati as a quasi-permanent 'state of mind' in the conventional sense - then one is apt think that 'mindfulness' conditioned by ignorance is the same as sati-cetasika. Sincerely, Scott. #91952 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries truth_aerator Dear Nina, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 26-okt-2008, om 18:50 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > Dhamma MUST be seen for oneself, by oneself. If one has to refer >to > > some books rather than experience happening NOW, then there is > > something wrong. Maybe the reason why suttas are so concise is >that > > they are guidelines for development and finding out for oneself? > ------- > N: Often I found it hard to understand what is meant in a short > sutta. Instead of phantasying, I rather investigate the ancient > tradition. But debating is not of much use. > Nina. Which tradition? There were 20 of them. Anyhow, I believe that Buddha was the best and that it is heretical to think that some monk who lived centuries (1000 years) later could match Buddha in explanation lucidity and so on. Best wishes, #91953 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/26/2008 7:34:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: Howard: "...It is my understanding that wisdom dispels unwholesome states, and a nonexistent state cannot be dispelled. It is also my experience that as soon as the nature of an unwholesome state is seen as such, it leaves. But it must be seen..." Scott: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine. Of course, resorting to experience is a rather unassailable argument. ;-) The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion? Sincerely, Scott. =============================== Scott, this is odd. You seem to be asking the same as what you asked before, and I already replied to it yesterday as best I could, quoting the Milindapanha. I really have nothing to add. If I come across a sutta that speaks of wisdom dispelling ignorance, I'll send it to you. Certainly wisdom "uproots" ignorance. I guess you just don't like "dispelling" terminology. With metta, Howard #91954 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/26/2008 6:57:22 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: wrong mindfulness springs up. .................................. Thanks for the above Sutta quote Scott. Your post confirms that "wrong mindfulness springs up." "Springs up" means it arises. (To help out the commentators.) Sorry, nothing else about your post made even the slightest dent in the Sutta quote. Looks like Wikipedia is doing better than 'the commentaries' today. LOL TG OUT #91955 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Scott) - Thanks for the following! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/26/2008 7:36:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Scott, Howard and all > The suggestion is that 'wisdom' (pa~n~naa) > has the function of 'dispelling unwholesome states.' I've not read > this. Can you clarify? I may be misunderstanding you. Might you > have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the > assertion? "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html metta, phil #91956 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/26/2008 7:41:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, There it is: Me: Yes, I recall other times this aspect of the view has been presented so its fine...Might you have some textual support for this, should this turn out to be the assertion?" Scott: Asked and answered as the lawyers say. --------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) ------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ====================== With metta, Howard #91957 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Scott, this is odd..." Scott: Remember how I said I'd sent it and it didn't arrive? Well, it finally did. ??? Sincerely, Scott. #91958 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - In a message dated 10/26/2008 7:50:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...If sati is 'always' wholesome, then how can it be mindful of unwholesome states which cannot coexist with sati?" Scott: Consider studying the citta-viithi as described in the Abhidhamma. This will show when sati can arise and what sort of object it can take. I can predict that your response will be to denigrate the source you are being referred to and demonstrate the lack of genuineness inherent in the question. If, by chance, I'm wrong about this, please feel free to go to the Useful Posts section under 'Process of cittas'. I'd be happy to learn more of this material with you. Sincerely, Scott. =============================== Certainly there can be sati present when there is awareness of an akusala state. I suspect that the Abhidhammic answer is that the akusala state would be a "just passed" state. In that case, what the actually present object at the time of mindful awareness of that akusala state must be a "sign" or "fresh memory" (i.e., mental photo-copy) of that state. According to Abhidhamma, is the sign or memory of an akusala state also akusala? If yes, then that explanation of how mindful awareness of akusala states and features goes out the window. With metta, Howard #91959 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Thanks for the above Sutta quote Scott. Your post confirms that 'wrong mindfulness springs up.' 'Springs up' means it arises..." Scott: Thanks for coming back to the discussion, TG. Yes, it arises. As do all other dhammas. 'Wrong-mindfulness' is something, but it is not 'sati'. Might you have some ideas about what 'wrong-mindfulness' might consist of? Sincerely, Scott. #91960 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Certainly there can be sati present when there is awareness of an akusala state. I suspect that the Abhidhammic answer is that the akusala state would be a 'just passed' state. In that case, what the actually present object at the time of mindful awareness of that akusala state must be a 'sign' or 'fresh memory' (i.e., mental photo-copy) of that state. According to Abhidhamma, is the sign or memory of an akusala state also akusala? If yes, then that explanation of how mindful awareness of akusala states and features goes out the window." Scott: I've just been in the U.P., actually, and have read you making this argument in the past! I'll leave things as they are, since much better than I have provided you with discussion regarding the view you highlight above. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #91961 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/26/2008 7:34:27 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Thanks for coming back to the discussion, TG. Yes, it arises. As do all other dhammas. 'Wrong-mindfulness' is something, but it is not 'sati'. Might you have some ideas about what 'wrong-mindfulness' might consist of? ..................................... Hi Scott As I've said repeatedly the last couple of days, mindfulness or right mindfulness deals with wholesome states "on the side" of enlightenment. Most particularly those involve with insight of conditionality events and principles...impermanence, affliction (as it relates to insight), and nonself. Sometimes it is bare knowledge of present experience, sometimes its remembering things said and done long ago. Mindfulness has considerable "breadth." Before I answer your question about my ideas of what "wrong mindfulness" is, since I have already stated views on that matter, since you say "wrong-mindfulness" is "a something"...would you explain what THAT something is? Then I will elaborate on it as well. TG OUT #91962 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:19 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...mindfulness or right mindfulness deals with wholesome states 'on the side' of enlightenment. Most particularly those involve with insight of conditionality events and principles...impermanence, affliction (as it relates to insight), and nonself. Sometimes it is bare knowledge of present experience, sometimes its remembering things said and done long ago. Mindfulness has considerable 'breadth...'" Scott: As a preliminary to our further discussion, would you please comment on the following: In the view as presented, what are 'wholesome states'? I'm having to assume that these have an idiosyncratic definition when compared to 'states' as 'dhammaa'. When you note 'as it relates to insight' are you referring to pa~n~naa-cetasika - as in the interaction of sati and pa~n~naa? If not, how would you define 'wisdom'? I ask because, below, you ask me to explain the 'something' that 'wrong-mindfulness' is. Let's get our terms straight before preceding. I've always read you to deny the existence of any 'something'. Have I misread you? TG: "...since you say 'wrong-mindfulness' is 'a something'...would you explain what THAT something is? Then I will elaborate on it as well." Scott: See above. What is 'something' according to the view you espouse. Sincerely, Scott. #91963 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/26/2008 9:44:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Certainly there can be sati present when there is awareness of an akusala state. I suspect that the Abhidhammic answer is that the akusala state would be a 'just passed' state. In that case, what the actually present object at the time of mindful awareness of that akusala state must be a 'sign' or 'fresh memory' (i.e., mental photo-copy) of that state. According to Abhidhamma, is the sign or memory of an akusala state also akusala? If yes, then that explanation of how mindful awareness of akusala states and features goes out the window." Scott: I've just been in the U.P., actually, and have read you making this argument in the past! I'll leave things as they are, since much better than I have provided you with discussion regarding the view you highlight above. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. ============================== I believe in fact that Nina has spoken of the sign that follows the just-passed state, and I think that is the Abhidhammic explanation. I have not discussed that before with regard to mindfulness of that sign, and the question that I raise now is whether the sign of an akusala dhaama is also akusala. If you don't know, then just say so instead of getting confrontational again. With metta, Howard #91964 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "I believe in fact that Nina has spoken of the sign that follows the just-passed state, and I think that is the Abhidhammic explanation. I have not discussed that before with regard to mindfulness of that sign, and the question that I raise now is whether the sign of an akusala dhaama is also akusala. If you don't know, then just say so instead of getting confrontational again." Scott: Please don't jump to conclusions, Howard. ;-) I did read in U.P. how this very thing was discussed with you, not, I think, in relation to sati as you say, but in general regarding the object of citta. Since the same thing applies to sati (conascently arising with citta) and its object, I thought you would be stating the same concerns I read you to have in the day. Am I right to anticipate that you do not agree with the notion, since it is not a present 'moment' (and I realize you don't like the momentary aspect of this) being cognized? If I've mis-anticipated your argument, please forgive me, and suggest an alternative. Sincerely, Scott. #91965 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil (and Scott) - > > Thanks for the following! :-) > > With metta,- Hi Howard and all > Thanks for the following! :-) Yes, I think the sutta below is an example of one that can be appreciated at different levels according to the depth our understanding has developed. The fact that the unwholesome state "subsides" when there is understanding of it in the basic, discretionary way described in the sutta is something that has surely been confirmed by all of us, whether in meditation or when there is wise attention in daily life. Also the fact that it doesn't always subside. That fact gives good material for reflection on the anattaness of it, there is no control over that subsiding. On the other hand, the "I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence" is, in my opinion, something we should approach with caution. I would like to study the commentary for this part. But I have had the first part, the subsiding, confirmed many times. I want to stay open to the commentaries (though currently I don't have the patience to read through them online) but we have to learn to trust the understanding that comes through experience as well. At the very worst, we will see a subsiding in the power of the gross defilements, and that is not a bad thing, obviously. There is a notion floating around out there that "if one reads suttas with wrong view one would be better off not having read them at all." This notion is so wrong I have trouble finding an adjective for it. Recently I settle on "obscene." ("Evil" is too strong since for me it implies intent, and there is not bad intent in that view.) metta, phil #91966 From: "colette" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries ksheri3 Whatzup Howard, I began reading this thread by reversing the posts to this post, where I began following the thread and, tentatively, being that I'm initially exposed to this line of thought that has a few unknown Pali and Buddhist terms, I am just gonna comment on a paragraph or two that is relavant to what it is that I'm trying to "grasp", become one with, and realize, understand better. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I see it, a satipatthana is a foundation (or field of application) > for sati, and satindriya is a mental faculty not at all different from sati. colette: look at what you've just said Howard: a satipatthana is a foundation (or field of application) > for sati, so you've got this EXTERNAL THING, a RUPA?, out there, somewhere. THEN > and satindriya is a mental faculty not at all different from sati. BUT NOW, sati is INTERNAL. Crafty one, aren't you? Surely you can see that you make it sound as though sati is a virus like the Asian Flu or Bird Flu which was highly praised by the Chinese in recent years. I say this in terms of your characterization of Sati where it is outside the body but then can be found inside the body. Just being playful, can I ask where this sati grows or exists, in the external world? I mean, is it like "truffles" and pigs, swine, are the best finders of such caste system delicacies? -------------------------------------- > So, I > question your distinguishing of them. colette: INDEED, by the process of distinguishing them or differentiating them, the person that is doing the harm is the person trying to isolate the terminology, categorize them, pigeon hole them, corner them, etc. If so, then what is the INTENT or PURPOSE that requires such a formalization as a Meriam Webster Definition? Now that's a tough question since we are dealing with tantras here while I recall and contemplate Allen Ginsburg's statements shown in the show "The Chicago 10" on INDEPENDENT LENS (PBS) where they actually showed Ginsburg chanting "Ommmm" but the idiot prosecutors, et al, all said that Ginsburg was saying "Ohhhhhh". THAT, my friends, IS IGNORANCE WITHOUT QUESTION. the Un-Conscious or subconscious is highly necessitated in the Abhidhamma. I > already pointed out from SN 48.50 the statement "Whatever mindfulness he has, > is his faculty of mindfulness," which identifies sati and satindriya. So, I > question your distinguishing of them. > ------------------------------------------ > > Through a quick recollection(through sa~n~naa) on any > akusala and its danger, sati stops it from defiling the mind such > that awareness and understanding can perform its abandoning function. colette: Sooooo, this is the antidote, sort-of-speak, for akusala consciousness! At least this is the terminology the Buddhists use to explain such occurances. That is something that I'll have to remember! "For sure, show me the back door" Leonard Skynard, huh? lol ------------------------------------------------------- My, it looks like we're getting to a hefty steak (i.e. meat & potatos) > Satindriya is not a single phenomenon, colette: good. You've seperated it, satindriya, and you've shown potentials... it is a sequence of sati that > is accompanied by other dhammas like atapi(exertion) and sampajanna > (awareness, alertness). colette: WONDERFULLY COMPLETED! Thank you sir! Stuff like this takes "time in position" or a dwelling on, abiding in, type of thing to become conscious of. I appreciate your help! gots ta go, thanx for the talk. toodles, colette #91967 From: "colette" Date: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:53 pm Subject: Principle and Phenomina ksheri3 Hi Group, I'm moving forward, again, into unknown territory but it specifically works with what I'm also trying to do by coordinating the past practices I've held for the last 30 years in WEstern esoteric traditions to these new and different Eastern practices and teachings. Take for instance the teachings on Li and Shi OR Principle and Phenomina. We can view these as being theory and fact OR, is it possible, to view them as being FUTURE DHAMMA and PRESENT DHAMMA. This is all very hypothetical for the time since I just encountered these aspects and terms, Li and Shi. I asked our groups sarch function to bring up any material on Li and Shi but found that it gave me a list of msg.: 91810, 91746, 91296, 91261, 91200, 91100, 91088, 91044, 90964, 90937. Having just found these terms I don't know if those msgs. are correct since the subject lines for those msgs. didn't mention anything concerning Li and Shi or Principle and Phenomina. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. toodles, colette #91968 From: "colette" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... ksheri3 Hi Scott, TG, et al, Just what is mindfulness? Is it consciousness or a state of being conscious? Is a single thought mindfulness or mindful? TG: mindfulness or right > mindfulness deals with wholesome states "on the side" of enlightenment. colette: this may just be "getting picky" on my part but aren't you, here, manifesting CONFUSION by simplifying mindfulness so much that it takes on the characteristics of enlightenment and vice versa? This is one slippery slope you guys are on. ---------------------------------------------- TG: Sometimes > it is bare knowledge of present experience, colette: again, dangerous teritory! I can almost sware that you are a Mahayanist and not a Theravadan. This entire thread is begining to wreek of being about the Madhyamika and Shunyata. I don't mean that in a negative way since I enjoy the Madhyamika and Shunyata. -------------------------------- > sometimes its remembering things > said and done long ago colette: come now, TG, this is nothing more than "conditioning" and ya know I'm gonna plug the Yogacaran here, since "remembering" is nothing more than tending the seeds (bija) that have been planted in the alaya-vijnana. -------------------------------- TG:Mindfulness has considerable "breadth." colette: without question! --------------------------- since you say > "wrong-mindfulness" is "a something"... colette: to both TG and Scott, I have never heard of anything so silly and absolutely ludicrous as "wrong-mindfulness"! Sure a person can misinterpret the facts of an occurance or a thing. Then we have to get into whether or not the misinterpretation was intentionally done as a form of gratifying a self or was the misinterpretation nothing more than bad evidence. Wrong mindfulness can by nothing more than double speak for some form of corruption. Thanx for giving me the chance on this one since this is a topic that can get out of hand very quickly if not taken care of before the roots can attach themselves to securely, or maybe Barney Fife (Phife) on The Andy Griffith Show said it best: "nip it, nip it in the bud". For those Americans out there that have a memory of the performance I speak of I hope I raised to consciousness that very scene and you pictured it in your mind with the soundtrack that went along with it since it brought a smile to my face and I was hoping that you would be laughing with me. toodles, colette #91969 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... philofillet Hi all or maybe Barney Fife (Phife) > on The Andy Griffith Show said it best: "nip it, nip it in the bud". http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=0ReToOClEy4&feature=related metta, phil #91970 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > ... > Yes, I think the sutta below is an example of one that can be > appreciated at different levels according to the depth our > understanding has developed. > > The fact that the unwholesome state "subsides" when there is > understanding of it in the basic, discretionary way described in the > sutta is something that has surely been confirmed by all of us Hi Phil, I'll keep this brief. :-) No need to answer. Did the Buddha want beginners to believe states (whether unwholesome or otherwise) would persist if they were not dispelled in some way? Did he teach the anicca characteristic of conditioned dhammas to the advanced students only? Ken H #91971 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... Hi Colette In a message dated 10/26/2008 10:50:26 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: TG: mindfulness or right > mindfulness deals with wholesome states "on the side" of enlightenment. colette: this may just be "getting picky" on my part but aren't you, here, manifesting CONFUSION by simplifying mindfulness so much that it takes on the characteristics of enlightenment and vice versa? ................................................................... TG: This is not what I said. This is not only a snippet of what I said, but a wrongly quoted snippet. .................................................................. This is one slippery slope you guys are on. ---------------------------------------------- TG: Sometimes > it is bare knowledge of present experience, colette: again, dangerous teritory! I can almost sware that you are a Mahayanist and not a Theravadan. This entire thread is begining to wreek of being about the Madhyamika and Shunyata. I don't mean that in a negative way since I enjoy the Madhyamika and Shunyata. ............................................................ TG: Sorry to disagree....here is a quote from the Satipatthana Sutta. This is about as Theravadin as it gets! "Or else mindfulness that 'there are mind-objects' is simply established in him to the extent necessary for bare knowledge and mindfulness." If "dangerous territory" is essentially a quote from the Suttas, then I am indeed in very dangerous territory! In fact, my statement "wreaked" of the Buddha's teaching from the Suttas. I'm glad you enjoy Madhyamika and Shunyata. I enjoyed it over 26 years ago but I haven't had an interest in it since then. I don't disrespect it, nor do I employ it. .................................................................... -------------------------------- > sometimes its remembering things > said and done long ago colette: come now, TG, this is nothing more than "conditioning" and ya know I'm gonna plug the Yogacaran here, since "remembering" is nothing more than tending the seeds (bija) that have been planted in the alaya-vijnana. -------------------------------- ............................................................ TG: Obviously you are very unfamiliar with the Suttas. This again is an often recurring quote from the Suttas. Its amazing you act so sure of yourself and yet are so utterly wrong. Maybe a little more humility and Sutta study is in order. ................................................................. TG:Mindfulness has considerable "breadth." colette: without question! --------------------------- since you say > "wrong-mindfulness" is "a something".. colette: to both TG and Scott, I have never heard of anything so silly and absolutely ludicrous as "wrong-mindfulness"s .......................................................................... TG: Then we'd have to assume you missed the Sutta quote that listed "wrong-mindfulness" and has been posted several times these last two days and been a source of major discussion. Well, good news is...you've heard of it now. I guess the Buddha was being silly and ludicrous when he spoke that Sutta and mentioned "wrong mindfulness"? .............................................................................. ....... Sure a person can misinterpret the facts of an occurance or a thing. Then we have to get into whether or not the misinterpretation was intentionally done as a form of gratifying a self or was the misinterpretation nothing more than bad evidence. Wrong mindfulness can by nothing more than double speak for some form of corruption. Thanx for giving me the chance on this one since this is a topic that can get out of hand very quickly if not taken care of before the roots can attach themselves to securely, ...................................................... TG: I'm glad you took care of it before it got out of hand. LOL Usually I don't respond to your posts because I don't understand them. But this one was so outrageous I had to bear down on it. Barney was funny though, I'll agree with that. TG OUT or maybe Barney Fife (Phife) on The Andy Griffith Show said it best: "nip it, nip it in the bud". For those Americans out there that have a memory of the performance I speak of I hope I raised to consciousness that very scene and you pictured it in your mind with the soundtrack that went along with it since it brought a smile to my face and I was hoping that you would be laughing with me. toodles, colette #91972 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi Ken > Hi Phil, > > I'll keep this brief. :-) No need to answer. > > Did the Buddha want beginners to believe states (whether unwholesome > or otherwise) would persist if they were not dispelled in some way? I don't know, I don't understand the question. (Not that it's a bad question, I just can't wrap my head around it at the moment.) I assume the answer is supposed to be.............................no. In any case, if you have trouble with the sutta, I recommend Bhikhu Bodhis Mahjima Nikaya talks. They are very clear. The talk on this sutta in particular was very important in getting me sorted out. > Did he teach the anicca characteristic of conditioned dhammas to the > advanced students only? We know that he only taught "the teachings that are particular to the Buddha" when he saw the mind of the listener was ready for them. But I don't know if impermanence falls in there. Probably not. metta, phil #91973 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:55 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi again > We know that he only taught "the teachings that are particular to > the Buddha" when he saw the mind of the listener was ready for them. Actually, I was thinking about this the other day. Even in the day of the Buddha, and even when the Buddha was speaking directly to the listener, this applied. And here we are in this day and age messing around with our thick, defilement-ladled minds with the deep teachings found in Abhidhamma and the commentaries and in most areas of the suttanta. There is something a wee bit humourous about it. We take ourselves so seriously in our Dhamma study, but if it isn't helping us to establish the kind of conditions that the Buddha was looking for before he taught his deep teachings, it will all be for moot, I think. Let's remember how the Buddha handled the deep teachings when dealing with listeners even in his day. And ask ourselves whether we our minds are really ready for them as we delve into the deep teachings that the Buddha didn't teach to people who weren't ready. (If I recall correctly, the "deep teachings" as held back by the Buddha until his listener was ready even included the Noble Truths, i.e suffering and the origin of suffering etc.) metta, phil #91974 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries kenhowardau Hi Phil, Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, the answer was supposed to be no. I don't have any trouble with this or any other sutta. I just need all suttas explained by the commentaries, or by someone who knows the commentaries. BTW, I watched the Barney Fife video. (That show was a favourite of mine when I was a boy.) But I am ashamed to say I didn't get it! Barney wiggled his hand around like a snake, Sheriff Andy said something (inaudible: only the sound track was audible) and that was it! The video stopped at the 47 second mark. What am I missing (besides a sense of humour)? Ken H #91975 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:08 pm Subject: Neither Agent, Actor nor Creator! bhikkhu0 Friends: Who or What Creates the Pain? They asked the blessed Buddha: Is suffering created by oneself? He answered: Not so! Is suffering created by another? He answered: Not so! Is suffering created both by oneself & another? Not so! Is suffering created neither by oneself nor another? Not so! Suffering arise in Dependence! Dependent on what? Dependent on Contact ... does all suffering arise ... Without contact it is impossible to experience any suffering! Dependent on Contact does Feeling arise. Dependent on Feeling does Craving arise. Dependent on Craving does Clinging arise. Dependent on Clinging does Becoming arise. Dependent on Becoming does Birth arise. Dependent on Birth does Decay & Death arise. Dependent on Decay & Death does Suffering come into being! Note: Death here is both death of the moment & death at life's end. There is thus no ‘agent’ or 'doer' or 'observer, neither inside nor outside... There is this passing sequence of momentary causally dependent states. The prior mental moment conditioning the next and this, the next etc... Quite impersonal is this flux. Not anything worth clinging to!!! Just ever passing states… Imagined "God"-creator concept. Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya II 32-43 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html All hail the "Creator"! Have a nice passive day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net There is neither Agent, Actor nor Creator! Only Conditioned Selfless States arising in Mutual Dependence! #91976 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries kenhowardau Hi again, Phil, Sorry, I realise now the link was not for "The Cobra" it was for "Nip it in the Bud" (as referred to by Colette). As you were! Ken H #91977 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi Ken > What am I missing > (besides a sense of humour)? It was indeed the Cobra I was linking to. I guess you don't remember that episode. Andy had confessed about arising lust towards Ella May (who worked at the local hardware store.) Barney explained that Mara was akin to a cobra, always waiting to strike when mindfulness of objects arising through the six doors was lax, and he urged Andy to develop mindfulness in the body, through meditation on the breath as taught in great detail in Visudimaggha. Andy at first rejected Barney's advice, and said that meditation as taught at the local Mahasi Sayadaw center in Maysberry was a form of clinging to rites and rituals, and correctly pointed out that noting the arising and falling of the abdomen was never taught by the Buddha. But as Barney patiently insisted that the Buddha most definitely did teach that mindfulness in the body must be established first, an awakening came to Andy. The word of awakening that Andy exclaimed at that moment is known to all Buddhists in the West - I'm a little surprised you have forgotten. Please read his lips to refresh your sati akin to memory. metta, phil #91978 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:30 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Someone asked how one can know that there is subtle attachment. Khun Sujin answered: By awareness and study of realities. At this moment realities appear. There is seeing, and then, what else is there after seeing? Kusala or akusala? Subtle attachment or calm, or right understanding or what else? Without awareness and study one cannot know this. It has been taught in the Abhidhamma that after seeing , if there is no kusala, there must be lobha-mla-citta, dosa-mla-citta or moha-mla- citta. Do we know this moment? Do we know what is there, as soon as there is seeing and no awareness or understanding of reality as it is? What is there after seeing? Subtle attachment, very subtle. So subtle that one cannot see that it is attachment. One wants to have indifferent feeling and one thinks that by having indifferent feeling one is calm. No, not at all. There can be moha-mla-citta or lobha- mla-citta with indifferent feeling. As soon as there is seeing there is attachment with indifferent feeling, but the attachment is very subtle. Before the Buddhas enlightenment there were wise people who understood the danger of subtle attachment after seeing or hearing. They developed calm since they did not have the understanding of the development of satipatthna. After the Buddhas enlightenment, people who listened to his teachings with right understanding knew that the most beneficial way of mental development is to be aware and study any reality which is conditioned and which appears. They knew that this is the way which leads not just to temporary freedom from defilements, but to their eradication. The Buddha taught people about each of the six doors so that realities could be known separately, one at a time. We usually confuse all the doorways and there is no mindfulness of only one reality at a time when it appears. We read in the Kindred Sayings(IV, Sayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, First Fifty, Ch I, 1) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Svatth, at the Jeta Grove, taught the impermanence of the eye. He said to the monks: ... The eye, monks, is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is dukkha, that is anatt. What is anatt that is not mine, I am not it, it is not myself. That is how it should be seen with perfect insight as it really is. The same is said about the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind. The sutta then continues: ...So seeing, monks, the well-taught ariyan disciple is repelled by the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind. Being repelled by them, he is not attached to them. Being not attached to them he is freed. In this freedom comes the insight of being free. Thus he realizes: Rebirth is destroyed, lived is the righteous life, done is the task, for life in these conditions there is no hereafter. Each reality has to be known separately. The Buddha taught the true nature of each reality which appears. ****** Nina. #91979 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:39 am Subject: Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristic of citta which is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. Fatigue, weakness, boredom, a feeling of being downcast, in low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they naturally appear, it will not be known that they are not a living being, not a person, not a self. They are only characteristics of citta which arises because of conditions and then falls away again. The Buddha explained citta under many different aspects. One of these aspects is the classification of citta as asankhrika and sasankhrika. Lobha-mla-citta can be asankhrika or sasankhrika. Also dosa-mla-citta and kusala citta can be asankhrika or sasankhrika. When sati can be aware of the characteristics of these realities they can be known as nma, different from rpa. A feeling of being downcast or disheartened, of being in low spirits, without energy for kusala, is not rpa. It is the nature of citta which is sasankhrika, there is at such moments a citta which is weak. ---------- Nina. #91980 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... ksheri3 Good Morning TG, The coffee isn't on the burner yet so that must be the sweet smell of nepalm. <...> Now, lets ask the Buddha how he likes, enjoys, your characterization of him and his endless list of suttas that you, in your ivory tower, guilded cage, seem to rant on being a simple task of finding, reading, meditating upon, and therefore should take the average buddhist nothing more than a week to be in possession of everything the Buddha said and did. I ponder such things, but, karma has a way of showing itself to the recipient it has the intention of visiting. One may just consider John Lennon's version of INSTANT KARMA but you are on the auction block. > TG: mindfulness or right > > mindfulness deals with wholesome states "on the side" of > enlightenment. > > colette: this may just be "getting picky" on my part but aren't you, > here, manifesting CONFUSION by simplifying mindfulness so much that > it takes on the characteristics of enlightenment and vice versa? > ................................................................... > > > TG: This is not what I said. This is not only a snippet of what I said, > but a wrongly quoted snippet. > > colette: sooo, Twisted Sister is a favorite of yours. I have a feeling that the rest of your reply will be as twisted as your standard Joseph Goebbles outlook. --------------------------- > This is one slippery slope you guys are on. > ---------------------------------------------- > > TG: Sometimes > > it is bare knowledge of present experience, > > colette: again, dangerous teritory! I can almost sware that you are a > Mahayanist and not a Theravadan. This entire thread is begining to > wreek of being about the Madhyamika and Shunyata. I don't mean that > in a negative way since I enjoy the Madhyamika and Shunyata. > > ............................................................ > > TG: Sorry to disagree colette: I wholeheartedly DISAGREE, you are not sorry in any way, in fact, you probably lay-in-wait akin to a booby-trapped object to explode, go off, and so you are in your heaven at this moment being able to exhalt your 25 years of study against any person that may have a mind that thinks and that you cannot lead like a lamb to slaughter. Maybe even a robot on the Hang Seng market or the Nikkei, but since it is 3 a.m. here that means the those Asian markets are about to close if not already closed, so you'll have to find value in the sale of flesh, somewhere else. Naw, I was thinking about making a statement concerning some of your emotions here but I'm gonna let it nurish itself upon your vanity as a means of empowering your delusion of a self. <...> Then we get into that Greek thing about "Being" followed by the Buddhist thing about Non-Being. Naw, too long of an off-ramp. ---------------------------------- ....here is a quote from the Satipatthana Sutta. This > is about as Theravadin as it gets! > > > "Or else mindfulness that 'there are mind-objects' is simply established in > him to the extent necessary for bare knowledge and mindfulness." > > > If "dangerous territory" is essentially a quote from the Suttas, then I am > indeed in very dangerous territory! In fact, my statement "wreaked" of the > Buddha's teaching from the Suttas. > colette: I'll hold onto this one for meditation and consider your deep seated ego here. as well as in the next gloating hallucination. > > I'm glad you enjoy Madhyamika and Shunyata. I enjoyed it over 26 years ago > but I haven't had an interest in it since then. I don't disrespect it, nor > do I employ it. > > > .................................................................... ------------------------------------- > > sometimes its remembering things > > said and done long ago > > colette: come now, TG, this is nothing more than "conditioning" and > ya know I'm gonna plug the Yogacaran here, since "remembering" is > nothing more than tending the seeds (bija) that have been planted in > the alaya-vijnana. > -------------------------------- > TG: Obviously you are very unfamiliar with the Suttas. colette: yes, this I believe, is the quote that caused me to realize your devotion to your self or the self that you think is exclusively yours. Who was that hermetic magician that said "IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS" because I can easily relate. But, in my past 30 years of hatred and scorn from the Middle Class (is that definative of Marylin Chambers or Master of Ceremonies, MC?) ----------------------------- This again is an > often recurring quote from the Suttas. Its amazing you act so sure of yourself > and yet are so utterly wrong. colette: aha (yes, I am allowing for my bros. of the O.T.O. to partake here), again I say, "aha", you can only think in categorization. <....> -------------------------------------- Maybe a little more humility and Sutta study > is in order. > colette: a little more study is always possible since uprooting those bijas is not easy. > colette: to both TG and Scott, I have never heard of anything so > silly and absolutely ludicrous as "wrong-mindfulness"s > > .................................................................... ...... > > > TG: Then we'd have to assume <...> ------------------------------- you missed the Sutta quote that listed > "wrong-mindfulness" and has been posted several times these last two days and been a > source of major discussion. colette: that is correct: I am not an addict of this forum and this forum's misgivings. ------------------- Well, good news is...you've heard of it now. > > colette: it's not nice to be so drunk since your version of what is good and what is bad are both emotions that I question. Anyway, from the pair of shoes that I stand in, that pair of shoes I got from the garbage can since I don't have enough money to purchase shoes, from my POV, we have very divergent definitions of good and bad. --------------------------------------------- Sorry I hear my roomates upstairs which means that my carelessness may have woken them. It's loud hitting this keyboard. so I must be off. I will savor the rest of TG's gloating and adoration of self, vanity, for later meditations and additions to my practices. toodles, colette > I guess the Buddha was being silly and ludicrous when he spoke that Sutta > and mentioned "wrong mindfulness"? <....> #91981 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Mon, 27/10/08, Phil wrote: >Thanks for this. As I was saying to Scott the other day, I'm finding it impossible to read long posts these days for some reason. But I'll bookmark it and hopefully read it someday. ... S: Quite understood and no problem at all (as far as I'm concerned). Simply, you were asking for other sutta quotes and references about there being 'no person' and I strung a few together.....I could have gone on to string the entire Tipitaka together of course:-). Anyway, lots in U.P. under 'Person and People' and if that doesn't get you through a rainy day in Tokyo, move on to 'Anatta':-)) Anyway, the interest was way back 'then' when you asked and now you're onto other threads, which is good to see. Metta, Sarah ======= #91982 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:46 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Sarah > >Thanks for this. As I was saying to Scott the other day, I'm finding > it impossible to read long posts these days for some reason. But I'll > bookmark it and hopefully read it someday. > ... > S: Quite understood and no problem at all (as far as I'm concerned). > > Simply, you were asking for other sutta quotes and references about there being 'no person' and I strung a few together.....I could have gone on to string the entire Tipitaka together of course:- Thanks Sarah. You (and everyone) are always so patient with my bizarre behaviour here. I'm feeling somewhat more solid on the "no person" teaching. About a week ago I took a rare trip into the UPs under anatta and found Nina and Rob M exchanging words of appreciation for the Questions of King Millinda. I checked it out, found it very helpful, have opened a thread on it at e-sangha. Here it is for anyone who's not familiar with, with an exchange that includes our good ol' chariot. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3504.htm Doubt does remain for me, of course, belief in persons does remain for me, of course. Yes, the chariot is the rod and the wheel and so on, and yet, and yet....there is something that is the chariot that is somewhat different in a way I can't clearly see from the sum of its parts. There is something that is a "person" that doesn't have ultimate existence, no, but is still somewhat different than a sum of its paramattha parts, that view still is there, and won't go away any day soon. We can't think it away, we can't believe it away, it is there with us...but no hurry (for me anyways) to get rid of it. So when I read the clear explanation of the wise man talking to the King, I understand it intellectually and appreciate its clarity, but to say I truly believe it is just paying lip service to the deep teachings. We have to grow into them very gradually, I think. I will keep believing in people until I don't, and there's no telling when that will be. Saying "no Nina, no Lodwijk" won't do it for me. Of course there can be moments of deeper understanding.Remember early on in my days at DSG I posted something called "My Wife turned into paramattha dhammas!" Maybe, just maybe, there was a moment of clear understanding, or maybe it was just taking delight in my new intellectual understanding of a deep teaching, I don't know. Thanks for clarifying what that long post is. (Obviously I have no trouble writing them.) I will read it, I don't bookmark many posts. metta, phil #91983 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? philofillet Hi all Could people kindly post references or links in which it is said the Buddha taught someone in the way below. I find it confusing. Why would he hold back the Noble Truths? I would like to understand those suttas better. Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi again > > > We know that he only taught "the teachings that are particular to > > the Buddha" when he saw the mind of the listener was ready for them. > #91984 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:57 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 308 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 308 Intro: In the previous sections the Dependent Origination was viewed in accordance with the three Discriminations, Pa.tisambhidaa, of meaning (attha) or the fruit of a cause, of cause (dhamma), and in accordance with the enunciation in language (nirutti), in order to show its profundity. The Buddha, with his omniscience, knew the right words to explain the Dependent Origination in various ways. In the following section the Dependent Origination is viewed in accordance with penetration, pa.tivedha, or direct realisation of the Truth in order to show the profundity of the Dependent Origination. The text reviews all the different links of the Dependent Origination that were described before, but now the keyword is pa.tivedha, direct realisation or penetration. This is different from intellectual understanding and investigation. Three phases of understanding can be discerned: intellectual understanding and investigation of the present reality, pariyatti, the development of understanding by mindfulness and understanding of the present reality, pa.tipatti, and the direct realisation of the truth of realities, pa.tivedha. ------------ Text Vis. 308: (d) Then the individual essences of ignorance, etc., owing to the penetration of which ignorance, etc., are rightly penetrated as to their specific characteristic, are profound since they are difficult to fathom. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in penetration. ------- N: The Tiika explains that penetrative understanding is undistorted in its nature and that its sees the object rightly through direct realisation. It is the opposite of ignorance that is not seeing, that conceals the truth. ------------ Text Vis.: For here the meaning of ignorance as unknowing and unseeing and non-penetration of the truth is profound; so is the meaning of formations as forming and accumulating with and without greed; so is the meaning of consciousness as void, uninterested, and manifestation of rebirth-linking without transmigration; ---------- N: The Tiika states as to consciousness (using the translation by Ven. Bodhi of the Mahaanidaana Sutta and Commentaries): N: Only through the direct realisation of the truth consciousness can be seen as empty of self. ------------ Text Vis.: so is the meaning of mentality-materiality as simultaneous arising, as resolved into components or not, and as bending [on to an object] (namana) and being molested (ruppana); so is the meaning of the sixfold base as predominance, world, door, field, and possession of objective field; so is the meaning of contact as touching, impingement, coincidence, and concurrence; so is the meaning of feeling as the experiencing of the stimulus of an object, as pleasure or pain or neutrality, as soulless, and as what is felt; ---------- N: The Tiika states (using B.Bs translation): As we read in Vis. XIV, 72, < the senses are bright like the surface of a looking glass.> By means of them the relevant sense objects appear very clearly to the sense-cognitions. We are very impressed by what we experience through the senses and attach great importance to it. The world comes to us through the senses. We are attached to the image of a whole, a long lasting world with people. But actually, there is only one moment at a time of experiencing an object, and all these realities we are attached to do not last. The Tiika mentions that the eye and the other senses are the world. The Tiika states: soullessness (nijjiiva.t.tha) of feeling is deep because of the strength of the adherence to the idea that a self feels. --------- Text Vis.: so is the meaning of craving as a delighting in, as a committal to, as a current, as a bindweed, as a river, as the ocean of craving, and as impossible to fill; so is the meaning of clinging as grasping, seizing, misinterpreting, adhering, and hard to get by; ------- N: The Tiika empasizes here that the four kinds of clinging are hard to overcome and that also craving is compared to an ocean since it is hard to go beyond it (duratikkama). ----------- Text Vis.: so is the meaning of becoming as accumulation, forming, and flinging into the various kinds of generation, destiny, station, and abode; so is the meaning of birth as birth, coming to birth, descent [into the womb], rebirth, and manifestation; and so is the meaning of ageing-and-death as destruction, fall, break-up and change. This is profundity of 'penetration'. -------- N: The Tiika elaborates on ageing-and-death, jaraamara.na. Decay should be seen as destruction. It is the process of maturing and being broken up, because of the destruction of each new state. Change, viparinaama, has a twofold meaing as the Tiika explains. It is decay and destruction of ageing (jaraa) with regard to continuity and it is said of death that it is the breaking up and change with regard to death in conventional sense and momentary death (sammutikha.nikavasena). ---------- Conclusion: In conventional sense death is the end of a lifespan. In the ultimate sense there is birth and death at each moment of citta: citta arises and then falls away. This will be seen more clearly when insight has been developed to the stage of direct understanding of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. The development of insight will lead to the penetration of the truth. So long as the true characteristics of naama and ruupa appearing at this moment are not directly realized, one cannot fathom the meaning of Dependent Origination. The foregoing text shows the profundity of the Dependent Origination with regard to pa.tivedha, penetration. This prevents oversimplification of the meaning of the Dependent Origination. One may read all the texts about this topic, but by reading and considering one has not understood its profundity. Clinging to nama and rupa as self is deeply rooted. One may still believe in the transmigration of a self from this life to the next life. But, as we read, there is a . The realities that arise are beyond control. The Buddha and his great disciples were endowed with the four Discriminations, pa.tisambhidas. The Buddha had the Discrimination of penetration to the highest extent. He taught us the Way so that we can at least begin to develop understanding of all realities of life. ----------- Nina. #91985 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries kenhowardau Hi Phil, Oh, yes, it's all coming back to me now! The character, Barney, never could get it right, could he? I seem to remember Ant Bee setting him straight, though. "Stop all this religious malarkey and just understand conditioned dhammas!" I think were her exact words. Good ol' Ant Bee! :-) Ken H > It was indeed the Cobra I was linking to. I guess you don't remember > that episode. Andy had confessed about arising lust towards Ella May > (who worked at the local hardware store.) Barney explained that Mara > was akin to a cobra, always waiting to strike when mindfulness of > objects arising through the six doors was lax, and he urged Andy to > develop mindfulness in the body, through meditation on the breath as > taught in great detail in Visudimaggha. #91986 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:03 am Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries philofillet Hi Ken Oh yes, Aunt Bee. Too bad that her passion for Abhidhamma and interest in the "annataness of it all" made her overlook negligence with respect to wild behaviour habits (remember the episode about her meth-amphetamine binges and subsquent county fair streetwalking?) that could have been curbed thanks to meditation. I hope she had a human rebirth, at least, but am not confident. (Of course there are no guarantees about that sort of thing for any of us.) Well, we had better drop this fun little detour now, Ken, before someone slaps us. metta, phil > Oh, yes, it's all coming back to me now! The character, Barney, never > could get it right, could he? > > I seem to remember Ant Bee setting him straight, though. "Stop all > this religious malarkey and just understand conditioned dhammas!" I > think were her exact words. > > Good ol' Ant Bee! :-) #91987 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:28 am Subject: 'Meet Joe Black' buddhatrue Hi All, Wow! I just saw the most incredible movie! `Meet Joe Black' is a must-see for any serious Buddhist! Not since `Groundhog Day' have I seen such a mainstream, Buddhist movie. I did a little searching on the Internet and I found that it came out in 1998, and it is now 2008 oops, it is no surprise to me that I am 10 year behind the times! ;-)) I just saw this movie for the first time on HBO Asia in Taiwan and I was floored! Actually, I was close to tears many times during the movie...but good tears. Okay, why do I highly recommend this movie for the discerning Buddhist viewer? I think this movie can give everyone an idea of how to make Death a part of your everyday life. Hmmm.that may sound like a bummer to some, but to the Buddhist this equals liberation! The Buddha taught Mindfulness of Death as an everyday meditation in many suttas; and on DSG I posted the entire extract from the Path of Purification on the Mindfulness of Death. It is very important! Watching `Meet Joe Black' can familiarize everyone with the idea of Death as an everyday companion and, not only that, but a possibly compassionate companion. Yes, the movie deals with business, and family, and romance- but Death has a part in all of that. In my life, I have experienced Death at many turns: my uncle, my birth mother, and both sets of grandparents, my brother, and my sister. As a result, I think I have been running away, a little bit, from Death. This movie (along with all that I have learned from the Buddha) shows me that I should become friendlier with Death. Death is always there with you side-by-side. I highly recommend this movie. Metta, James #91988 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... scottduncan2 Dear TG, (and Nina), Regarding: TG: "...since you say 'wrong-mindfulness' is 'a something'...would you explain what THAT something is?..." Scott: Here is what I have so far, in case you've stalled. ;-) Since the Commentary to the sutta notes that ignorance (avijjaa, which is moha-cetasika, one of the three unwholesome roots) is the 'forerunner' (pubba"ngama), and arises conascently with unwholesome states, making states which arise conascently with it to 'conform to its own mode of confusion about the object...[and] as a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states', I'd suggest that that 'something' would be under the sway of avijjaa, the root; the characteristics of avijjaa are (Dhammasa"nga.ni, pp. 94-95): "The lack of knowledge, of vision, which there is on that occasion; the lack of co-ordination, of judgment, of enlightenment, of penetration; the inability to comprehend, to grasp thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate; the folly, the childishness, the lack of intelligence; the dullness, the vagueness, obfuscation, ignorance...the dullness that is the root of badness - this is the dullness that there then is." Scott: The Dhammsa"nga.ni (pp.90-91) also list all of the states 'that are bad' (akusala) - that is the states accompanying akusala dhamma. Please see below, for the first list: "...contact (phasso), feeling (vedanaa), perception (sa~n~naa), volition (cetanaa), thought (citta.m), applied (vitakko), and sustained (vicaaro) thought, zest (piiti), ease (sukha.m), self-collectedness (cittassekaggataa); the faculties of energy (viiriyindriya.m), concentration (samaadhindriya.m), mind (manindriya.m), gladness (sukhindriya.m - [I think, the Paa.li version of Dhammasa"nga.ni had a repetition of 'manindriya.m' which I correct here]), life (jiivitindriya.m); wrong views (micchaadi.t.thi), wrong intention (micchaasa"nkappo), wrong endeavour (micchaavaayaamo), wrong concentration (micchaasamdhi),; the powers of energy (viiriyabala.m), concentration (samaadhibala.m), unconscientiousness (ahirikabalaṃ), disregard of blame (anottappabala.m); lust (lobho), covetousness (moho), dullness (abhijjhaa), wrong views (micchaadi.t.thi), unconscientiousness (ahirika.m), disregard of blame (anottappa.m), quiet (samatho), grasp (paggaaho), balance (avikkhepo)..." Scott: Please note the absence of 'wrong mindfulness'. I don't yet know why it is absent, mind you, and it is absent in the exposition of other examples of akusala citta which follow the section above. Perhaps, Nina, you might know why this is so. Please note that avijjaa is condition for dhammas that arise either conascently or subsequently. So, I'm still researching this, but, in general, the 'something', if there be one, will have characteristics. Sincerely, Scott. #91989 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... scottduncan2 Dear TG, In the Sammohavinodanii (vol. I, p. 165), 'wrong mindfulness' is linked to 'sati santi.t.thati' which is translated as 'mindfulness is stationary.' The commentary (note 35, p. 216) states: "...he refers to either the sense of attraction (nikanti) or the consciousness associated with a sense of attraction as 'wrong mindfulness'." Scott: Nikanti is, according to the PTS PED, "desire, craving, longing for, wish." In the Dhammasa"nga.ni, 'nikanti' is found in the section describing 'greed', also as 'wish'. 'Greed' is lobha-cetasika, and a root. Perhaps this (lobha), rather than avijjaa, is the root when 'wrong mindfulness' arises. That is, it is associated with lobha. Later, in vol II, p. 144, it is noted: "It is the non-bewilderment of mind...that is associated with [Right Effort] and shakes off [viniddhunako] wrong mindfulness and accomplishes the contemplation of the body, etc. in the body, etc., which is Right Mindfulness." Sincerely, Scott. #91990 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/26/2008 11:51:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "I believe in fact that Nina has spoken of the sign that follows the just-passed state, and I think that is the Abhidhammic explanation. I have not discussed that before with regard to mindfulness of that sign, and the question that I raise now is whether the sign of an akusala dhaama is also akusala. If you don't know, then just say so instead of getting confrontational again." Scott: Please don't jump to conclusions, Howard. ;-) I did read in U.P. how this very thing was discussed with you, not, I think, in relation to sati as you say, but in general regarding the object of citta. Since the same thing applies to sati (conascently arising with citta) and its object, I thought you would be stating the same concerns I read you to have in the day. Am I right to anticipate that you do not agree with the notion, since it is not a present 'moment' (and I realize you don't like the momentary aspect of this) being cognized? If I've mis-anticipated your argument, please forgive me, and suggest an alternative. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I am currently doing is considering the possibility that the "direct" consciousness of a just -passed state is the consciousness of a "sign," a mental construct that is a faithful copy of the state that can now be taken as direct object. (Forget about the "frame" question, for this is actually independent of that.) I am not dismissing this "sign" explanation of "direct" observation of a just-passed mind state, which I have indeed discussed before, but am considering it - as possible fact. My question as this point, as I have now said three times, I think, is the matter of whether the sign of an akusala state is itself considered akusala or not, and, if it IS akusala, whether that makes the current state observing that sign also akusala, for that seems to be relevant as to whether the current observing state can include sati as a feature or not, according to Abhidhamma. Do you get the questions, Scott? They are technical matters, free of any desire to "push" a position. ------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott ============================= With metta, Howard #91991 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 10/27/2008 12:49:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Whatzup Howard, I began reading this thread by reversing the posts to this post, where I began following the thread and, tentatively, being that I'm initially exposed to this line of thought that has a few unknown Pali and Buddhist terms, I am just gonna comment on a paragraph or two that is relavant to what it is that I'm trying to "grasp", become one with, and realize, understand better. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I see it, a satipatthana is a foundation (or field of application) > for sati, and satindriya is a mental faculty not at all different from sati. colette: look at what you've just said Howard: a satipatthana is a foundation (or field of application) > for sati, so you've got this EXTERNAL THING, a RUPA?, out there, somewhere. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Nope - never said that, and don't believe that. --------------------------------------------- THEN > and satindriya is a mental faculty not at all different from sati. BUT NOW, sati is INTERNAL. Crafty one, aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, yeah? Well, hey, thanks! LOL! --------------------------------------------------- Surely you can see that you make it sound as though sati is a virus like the Asian Flu or Bird Flu which was highly praised by the Chinese in recent years. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Your thinking is your thinking. It doesn't resonate with me, though. I have said more than once what I consider sati to be. -------------------------------------------------- I say this in terms of your characterization of Sati where it is outside the body but then can be found inside the body. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: None of that makes any sense to me. Sati is a mental monitoring operation. ---------------------------------------------- Just being playful, can I ask where this sati grows or exists, in the external world? I mean, is it like "truffles" and pigs, swine, are the best finders of such caste system delicacies? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Colette, you've bult a dream house and have now moved in. ;-) Sati is a cetasika ... period. ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- > So, I > question your distinguishing of them. colette: INDEED, by the process of distinguishing them or differentiating them, the person that is doing the harm is the person trying to isolate the terminology, categorize them, pigeon hole them, corner them, etc. If so, then what is the INTENT or PURPOSE that requires such a formalization as a Meriam Webster Definition? Now that's a tough question since we are dealing with tantras here while I recall and contemplate Allen Ginsburg's statements shown in the show "The Chicago 10" on INDEPENDENT LENS (PBS) where they actually showed Ginsburg chanting "Ommmm" but the idiot prosecutors, et al, all said that Ginsburg was saying "Ohhhhhh". THAT, my friends, IS IGNORANCE WITHOUT QUESTION. the Un-Conscious or subconscious is highly necessitated in the Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, Colette - I can't follow any of this. ------------------------------------------------ I > already pointed out from SN 48.50 the statement "Whatever mindfulness he has, > is his faculty of mindfulness," which identifies sati and satindriya. So, I > question your distinguishing of them. > ------------------------------------------ > > Through a quick recollection(through sa~n~naa) on any > akusala and its danger, sati stops it from defiling the mind such > that awareness and understanding can perform its abandoning function. colette: Sooooo, this is the antidote, sort-of-speak, for akusala consciousness! At least this is the terminology the Buddhists use to explain such occurances. That is something that I'll have to remember! "For sure, show me the back door" Leonard Skynard, huh? lol ------------------------------------------------------- My, it looks like we're getting to a hefty steak (i.e. meat & potatos) > Satindriya is not a single phenomenon, colette: good. You've seperated it, satindriya, and you've shown potentials... ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe that this quote, "Satindriya is not a single phenomenon," is a quote of anything that I wrote. No doubt someone said it, but not I, so far as I recall. ------------------------------------------------- it is a sequence of sati that > is accompanied by other dhammas like atapi(exertion) and sampajanna > (awareness, alertness). colette: WONDERFULLY COMPLETED! Thank you sir! Stuff like this takes "time in position" or a dwelling on, abiding in, type of thing to become conscious of. I appreciate your help! ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Maybe this came from Scott. In any case, I hereby pass on the appreciation to whoever deserves it. ---------------------------------------------- gots ta go, thanx for the talk. toodles, colette ========================== With metta, Howard #91992 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana - Ariya sarahprocter... Dear Scott, I've really appreciated all your detailed messages referring to MN 117 and jhana. I just have a couple of questions here (on a minor point in #91578): --- On Fri, 17/10/08, Scott wrote: >Regarding the claim: 'Ariyo denotes ariyans and that's all,' consider MN 48, Kosambiyasutta. m, which refers to 'the great reviewing knowledges' (mahaapaccavekkha. na~naa.na) of a stream-enterer, and it will be clear that 'ariya.m' is in adjectival reference to dhammas, not persons: .... S: Yes, this is true. ... <...> >"...He understands thus: 'I possess the strength of a person who possesses right view.' This is the sixth knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people...This is the seventh knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people (ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na. m puthujjanehi) ..." >Scott: It is clear that the phrase, repeated seven times, 'this is the...knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people' refers to '~naa.na' not 'persons.' It is clear that, since this is describing the mahaapaccavekkhaa. na~naa.na of the stream-enterer, it refers to supramundane concsciousness. ... S: Qus: 1.Of course the paccavekkana cittas (reviewing cittas)or ~naa.na are not themselves lokuttara, but can only arise following the lokuttara cittas. Is this what you understand the text to be saying and what you are saying above? 2.From our Abh studies we know there are only a max of 5 kinds of paccavekkana cittas following the first 3 sets of lokuttara cittas, and 4 following the arahat's lokuttara cittas and that these review the path, fruition and nibbana, as well as (but not in all cases) the defilements eradicated and those remaining only. These knowledges given in the sutta seem more 'general', referring to the general wisdom of the sotapanna. I see Nanamoli/Bodhi give a footnote to say the "MA calls those seven factors the "great reviewing knowledges" of a stream-enterer", and that they refer us to Vism XXII, 19-21. What do you think? .... >The Paa.li ('...ariya.m lokuttara.m asaadhaara.na. m. puthujjanehi) clearly shows that the designations 'ariya.m' and 'lokuttara.m' not only refer to a class of consciousness but are, again, well evident in the suttas. ... S: Very true! Metta, Sarah ======= #91993 From: han tun Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:19 am Subject: Re: 'Meet Joe Black' hantun1 Dear James, What a coincidence! I just saw the movie that you had seen. Now-a-days, I see CNN and History channel, National Geographic channel, Discovery, and Animal Planet. I rarely see the movies. But this time, my grand-daughter saw the movie and she could not understand, and asked me to see the movie and explain to her. You are right. It was an incredible movie! I got the plot of the movie from Wikipedia. ------------------------------ Plot: Meet Joe Black is the story of Death taking a break from his usual duties and inhabiting the body of a recently deceased young man in order to learn of human experience. The film covers three main story lines: a naive Angel of Death's (Brad Pitt) first experiences with simple pleasures such as peanut butter, Death's chosen guide's attempts to manage his business based on the principles on which he founded it, while coming to terms with his own mortality, and a romance between "Joe Black" and his guide's daughter, Susan (Claire Forlani). The movie opens with an introduction to the guide, Bill Parrish (Anthony Hopkins), who doubts that he will live for many more years. Indeed, he is approached in his home and work by what he thinks are hallucinations, wherein Death himself has come with the intention of escorting him to the afterlife. Bill, touched by his dream-like brush with mortality, expresses his desire for his daughter, Susan, to live a life with passion. She is considering marriage, but her father is not favorably impressed by her relationship. When she asks for the short version of his impassioned speech, he simply says, "Stay open. Who knows? Lightning could strike!" Shortly after hearing this advice, Susan meets a vibrant young man, who quotes a similar philosophy about lightning, and with whom she is instantly enamored. Immediately after this encounter, turning the corner from Susan, the young man is struck in a dramatic car accident. Death returns to Bill's home in the form of the young man, explaining that his impassioned speech has piqued his (Death's) interest after an eternity of boredom. Thanks to Bill's "competence, experience and wisdom," Death has chosen him and tells Bill that in return for an extended lifetime, Bill shall be his guide on Earth. In return Bill will "get time; minutes, days, weeks. Let's not get encumbered by detail... what matters is that I stay interested." Death places himself at Bill's right hand, taking the persona of 'Joe Black' and establishing his place in Bill's home and work, instructing Bill to reveal his identity to nobody. This last task is complicated when the Board of Directors of Bill's media empire are urging for a union with a larger company, under the instigation of Susan's fiance, Drew (Jake Weber). After a tense Board meeting wherein Bill advises the Board against the merger, Joe ventures into the city to explore. He visits the hospital where Susan works as a doctor to see her and in doing so, observes the human aspect of mortality, which was apparently unknown to him. A dying patient, who recognized Joe as Death, tells him she is in pain and begs him to take her. He grants her reprieve from the pain and promises to take her afterward. He returns to visit Bill, who describes his late wife and adds that he believed himself incapable of living without her after her death. He says to Joe that he had probably heard this "a trillion times before," to which Joe responds, "...and more." Their conversation is interrupted by Drew who is bothered by the reversal of Bill's decision regarding the merger. Bill becomes angry at the prospect of the company that he built becoming less than he planned, believing that a man should leave something of integrity in his passing, whereupon Joe cautions "Easy, Bill; You'll give yourself a heart attack and ruin my vacation." Realizing that Joe could end his delay at any time, Bill arranges for dinner with his family two nights in a row, raising concerns. Bill attempts a broken and awkward speech focusing on the idea of family, after which he invites them all back for dinner again the next night. Touched by his feelings, they all agree, with one exception; that being Drew, who is angered by the presence of Joe Black, who appears to have taken the ear of Bill Parrish and disrupted Drew's plans. He is even more rankled by the increasing closeness between Susan and Joe. After a number of snide comments aimed at Joe over dinner, Drew confronts Susan about her feelings for Joe, which ends in Drew's uncertainty. After a flirtatious conversation with Joe, who has overheard the argument with Drew, Susan is warned by Bill not to become attached to this mysterious stranger. During the next day, Drew has gathered the board of the company, advising them that Parrish has been unconditionally influenced by "Mr. Joe Black" and telling them that the offer from the rival company has been sweetened and will be accepted with or without Parrish as Chairman. After a scene wherein Parrish is reminded of the virtue of family when he distresses his other daughter, Allison (Marcia Gay Harden), who is trying to organize Bill's sixty-fifth birthday party, he answers the door to Drew, who starkly threatens that the Board will see him removed over the acceptance of the merger. Drew then leaves, angrily announcing to Susan that this is "the end of my chapter with the Parrishes. And the end began with this guy," indicating Joe, who has also followed. After a tense and crude standoff, Drew leaves Susan and Joe alone. The pair become romantically close; after kissing her, Joe realizes that he has reached a pivotal moment in his relationship with this mortal woman. They are interrupted by Bill, who shows concern for his daughter. The following morning, Parrish is confronted by Drew and the Board of Directors, who reiterate their intentions regarding the merger. After Bill's emphatic refusal to accept both the merger and the Board's request for the identity of Joe, they vote to make Bill "Chairman Emeritus," powerless and dethroned. After the meeting, it is revealed that Drew was in collaboration with the rival company from the start, with the intention of seizing power and then selling off Parrish Communications for a huge profit. Bill and Joe return home, where Bill, disheartened, goes for a nap. Joe comes across Susan; after an awkward moment, they make love. In the heat of the moment, Joe experiences these tender feelings with fresh eyes. Afterwards, he tells her of his intention to stay with her. He meets with Bill, who defies this union and reminds Joe of who he really is and his purpose in the universe. Joe disregards Bill's violent words. Shortly after another encounter with Bill's daughter, Joe realizes that she is not enamored exactly of him, but rather of the man whose body he has assumed. Joe returns to Bill, where he "reveals" he is actually an IRS agent investigating Drew's dealings; a play on the saying "death and taxes." Bill is restored as chairman and the merger is canceled. In his speech at the lavish gala celebration, Bill Parrish fondly expresses his appreciation to his daughters for their work preparing it as well as his love for both of them. Joe later escorts Bill out of sight over a nearby hill, presumably to his own death. Joe then sends back to life the young man whose body he borrowed, allowing Susan that chance to finally pursue a relationship with him. Susan tells him she wishes he could have met her father, indicating that she understands that Black was Death, and that her father is dead. The story ends as both of them are watching the fireworks celebrating her father's birthday. ------------------------------ Cast: Brad Pitt as Joe Black / Young Man in Coffee Shop Anthony Hopkins as William "Bill" Parrish Claire Forlani as Susan Parrish Jake Weber as Drew Marcia Gay Harden as Allison Parrish Jeffrey Tambor as Quince http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_Joe_Black ------------------------------ Yours truly, Han #91994 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey Quote upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/27/2008 4:40:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom arise. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Does a single *citta think? Is there no change/development while thinking is in process? ======================== With metta, Howard * N. B. I use your terminology here, Nina. (I personally don't think in terms of discrete cittas, nor do I think of consciousness as a thing that thinks or feels or anything else, it not being an entity-agent, but just being a "being conscious of something.") #91995 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Meet Joe Black' upasaka_howard Hi, Han (and James) - In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:20:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Meet Joe Black is the story of Death taking a break from his usual duties and inhabiting the body of a recently deceased young man in order to learn of human experience. ============================= Yes, I believe it is a remake of a very old film, possibly from the 40's, entitled Death Takes a Holiday. With metta, Howard #91996 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Meet Joe Black' upasaka_howard Hi again, Han - In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:36:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Han (and James) - In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:20:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Meet Joe Black is the story of Death taking a break from his usual duties and inhabiting the body of a recently deceased young man in order to learn of human experience. ============================= Yes, I believe it is a remake of a very old film, possibly from the 40's, entitled Death Takes a Holiday. With metta, Howard ============================= I just checked. It's even older than I thought. It came out in March, 1934. With metta, Howard #91997 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 10/27/2008 6:20:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: I'd suggest that that 'something' would be under the sway of avijjaa, the root; the characteristics of avijjaa are (Dhammasa"nga.are (Dhammasa"nga ................................................... TG: Indubitably .................................................... Scott: Please note the absence of 'wrong mindfulness'Scott: Please not know why it is absent, mind you, and it is absent in the exposition of other examples of akusala citta which follow the section above. Perhaps, Nina, you might know why this is so. Please note that avijjaa is condition for dhammas that arise either conascently or subsequently. So, I'm still researching this, but, in general, the 'something', if there be one, will have characteristics. ........................................................ TG: I'll be interested to see what you come up with. However, my understanding is that when the Buddha says "wrong mindfulness," it is "wrong mindfulness" that he means and not some "other something." Since the commentaries act as authority for you, I'm sure you'll follow whatever they say verbatim. I guess you'll be in indefinite limbo if they are silent on the matter. ;-) TG OUT #91998 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... TGrand458@... Hi Scott You found stuff below that is very interesting. In all seriousness, thanks for going to the trouble. Its all reasonable and as of now still inconclusive in and of itself. May I point out something. If the commentators had a particular view of Dhamma, wouldn't their collation of meanings and terms follow in accordance of that preconceived viewpoint? In other words, wouldn't their scholarship be biased in demonstrating things the way they saw them...as realities with their own characteristics for example. Not that this would be done for ulterior motives, but just done because that's what they thought was right. At any rate, the Suttas are the best we have as the actual "unbiased" words on the Buddha...and not other unknown peoples, unknown generations removed, tinkering with those words. Whatever scholarship they performed, will not be the thoughts of the Buddha...it will be theirs. Actually, as I often say, I find a great deal of the commentaries useful, helpful, and reasonable. But some of it, particularly the ultimate reality stuff, I find harmful. TG OUT In a message dated 10/27/2008 6:55:50 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, In the Sammohavinodanii (vol. I, p. 165), 'wrong mindfulness' is linked to 'sati santi.t.thati' which is translated as 'mindfulness is stationary.' The commentary (note 35, p. 216) states: "...he refers to either the sense of attraction (nikanti) or the consciousness associated with a sense of attraction as 'wrong mindfulness'mi Scott: Nikanti is, according to the PTS PED, "desire, craving, longing for, wish." In the Dhammasa"nga.for, wish." In the Dhammasa"nga.ni, describing 'greed', also as 'wish'. 'Greed' is lobha-cetasika, and a root. Perhaps this (lobha), rather than avijjaa, is the root when 'wrong mindfulness' arises. That is, it is associated with lobha. Later, in vol II, p. 144, it is noted: "It is the non-bewilderment of mind...that is associated with [Right Effort] and shakes off [viniddhunako] wrong mindfulness and accomplishes the contemplation of the body, etc. in the body, etc., which is Right Mindfulness.w Sincerely, Scott. #91999 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett... upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:47:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: I'll be interested to see what you come up with. However, my understanding is that when the Buddha says "wrong mindfulness," it is "wrong mindfulness" that he means and not some "other something." ============================= "Wrong X" doesn't always mean a variety of X, but sometimes a counterfeit X. For example, wrong directions to a restaurant aren't really directions to that restaurant. A wrong path to awakening is not a path to awakening. A wrong prescription for a disease is not a prescription for that disease, but is a mistake that could kill the patient instead of helping him. With right (;-) metta, Howard