#92000 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:55 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/27/2008 10:29:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

"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



............................................
Hi Howard


TG:  Wrong directions are still "directions" aren't they?  There  just lead
the wrong way.  Just like (the potential) "wrong  mindfulness."


Of course a "wrong path" to awakening is not a path TO awakening.  Its  a
"path" that doesn't lead to awakening.  This is NOT the point.  In  fact, both
of
these arguments, and the last one, support the idea of "wrong  mindfulness"
being a "kind" of mindfulness...if one were to rely on the logic of  these
arguments.  A wrong prescription for a disease is CERTAINLY a  prescription.


The point in question is NOT whether or not wrong mindfulness leads to
awakening.  The point in question is whether or not it is a form  of
mindfulness...a kind that does not assist in awakening, and perhaps leads  away
from it.


I think the two hypothesis in play are whether wrong mindfulness is just  "no
mindfulness," or a ignorance based type of mindfulness that actually  arises.


I think your first assessment was that it was the latter.  Now I'm not  sure
what you're saying but perhaps you're leaning toward the former.  My  first
inclination was to say it was the former, now I'm slightly weighted toward  the
latter.   LOL


  (Scotts commentarial analysis seems to have passages pointing in both
directions.)


TG OUT


#92001 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:22 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG -

In a message dated 10/27/2008 12:56:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

............................................
Hi Howard


TG:  Wrong directions are still "directions"  aren't they?  There  just lead
the wrong way.  Just like  (the potential) "wrong  mindfulness."
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Wrong directions to a destination are not  directions to that
destination, though they were THOUGHT to be.
---------------------------------------------





Of course a "wrong path" to awakening is not a path TO  awakening.  Its  a
"path" that doesn't lead to awakening.   This is NOT the point.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     It is MY point. Wrong mindfulness, IMO, is not  mindfulness at all, but
is something mistaken for mindfulness.
--------------------------------------------

In   fact, both of
these arguments, and the last one, support the idea of  "wrong  mindfulness"
being a "kind" of mindfulness...if one were to  rely on the logic of  these
arguments.  A wrong prescription for  a disease is CERTAINLY a  prescription.
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     When a patient receives a prescription for high  blood pressure that is
mistakenly, say, for Lipitor, what he received was a  wrong prescription for
high blood pressure, and it in fact was not a  prescription for high blood
pressure at all, but for high cholesterol. But  let's not debate a particular
example. Any ONE example that works is enough to  make the point: A wrong-X is
often not an X at all.
-----------------------------------------------
The point in question  is NOT whether or not wrong mindfulness leads to
awakening.  The  point in question is whether or not it is a form  of
mindfulness...a  kind that does not assist in awakening, and perhaps leads
away from  it.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Yes, I understand the point. :-)
----------------------------------------------


I think the two  hypothesis in play are whether wrong mindfulness is just
"no
mindfulness," or a ignorance based type of mindfulness that actually
arises.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     As I have said, I think that wrong mindfulness is  a counterfeit - a
mistaken substitute for mindfulness sufficiently similar  to be mistaken for it.
Another example: Pity, the near-enemy of compassion, is  an example of wrong
compassion. It is counterfeit compassion.
----------------------------------------------


I think your  first assessment was that it was the latter.  Now I'm not  sure

what you're saying but perhaps you're leaning toward the former.   My  first
inclination was to say it was the former, now I'm slightly  weighted toward
the
latter.   LOL
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Well, formerly I leaned towards the latter, but  now that I lean away,
the latter is former, and so the former latter came later  than the latter
former - er, formerly, anyway. Right? LOLOL!
----------------------------------------


(Scotts commentarial  analysis seems to have passages pointing in both
directions.)


TG OUT
=========================
With metta,
Chaim Zelig Ben Yitzchak  (formerly Howard)

P. S. Threw in my Hebrew name just to be able to say "formerly"!  ;-))




/A change  in anything is a change in  everything/

(Anonymous)



#92002 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:41 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey Quote  nilovg 
  Hi Howard,
I know you do not like citta thinks. Still there is a word derivation
in Pali: cinteti, and citta.
And here: different cittas 'think' of performing a task, but there is
boredom. Thinking is allowable, it can be used in a general sense.
Anyway, most important: there is no agent, we know that citta is not
an agent, see also Vis. text today.
Nina.
Op 27-okt-2008, om 15:25 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> Howard:
> Does a single *citta think? Is there no change/development while
> thinking is in process?


#92003 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:05 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries  nilovg 
  Hi TG,
Op 26-okt-2008, om 19:54 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende
geschreven:

> 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"?
--------
N: The Buddha spoke all the time about dhammas or dhatus appearing
through the six doors. Elements. All the time about seeing , hearing
etc. See M III, 115, the Manifold Elements: the element of eye, the
element of material shape [visible object], the element of visual
consciousness... etc.
No need to call them paramattha dhammas, but in this way they are
distinguished from notions like table or tree.
Why characteristics? Because his teaching is about direct experience.
Characteristics are experienced, no need to think of them.
Why the present moment? Because the teaching is about experience, not
thinking of what is gone already.
You want me to prove whether characteristics and paramattha dhammas
are words used in the sutta or not. No, not possible to prove. But
this does not matter to me. His teaching is about what can be
experienced now through the six doors, only elements, devoid of self.
For me that is the essence.

--------

> T.G.: 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?
-----
N: So long as there is no clear understanding of conditioned
phenomena there cannot be detachment or turning away from them. How
could one turn away from what is not fully and thoroughly understood
yet? It all happens when it is the right time. Meanwhile,
understanding can be developed very naturally.
-------
In your post to Sarah: dhammas, why plural?
Dhammapada, vs. 279: sabbe dhammaa anattaa. Dhammaa in Pali is the
plural of dhamma.
-----
Nina.


#92004 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:37 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  nilovg 
  Hi Howard,
with 72 mails not yet read I must make it short, but this does not
mean that I find your points not worth while!
Op 26-okt-2008, om 14:36 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> N: . 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.
> ----------------------------------------------
> N: I am afraid not. The beginning should be right, otherwise there
> is not right concentration but wrong concentration. The latter
> cannot change into the former.
----------
> N:<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.
> ----------------------------------------
> N: Different people attach different meanings to the word calm.
> Calm is passaddhi, a sobhana cetasika arising with each kusala
> citta. Actually there are two: calm of citta and calm of cetasikas.
> It does not mean that when one feels so calm there is wholesome calm.
--------
> <Khun Sujin said:
>
> <<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.
--------
N: Seeing sees visible object only. But it seems that we see people.
Wrong. There is not yet pa~n~naa that is keen enough to discern
different cittas with different characteristics.
--------

> H: The body door, however,
> is a more suitable gateway for the realization of the tilakkhana
> and dependent
> origination than the eye door.
> ------------------------------------
> N: But then there is a kind of selection, I am afraid, preferring
> this object to that and not leaving the task to sati that arises
> because of its own conditions and cannot be directed. Any reality
> that appears to sati can be studied, awareness is needed again and
> again. Hearing is real, and it appears naturally. Should it not be
> known?
Leaving it all to sati really helps to understand what sati is. Not
trying to interefere, this is very important. It all depends on sati
what reality is its object.
> First the difference has to be known between the moments with sati
> and the moments without. The difference between nama and rupa
> should be known: hearing is not sound. Later on the arising and
> falling away can be realised. But not immediately the tilakka.
> People have such a hurry with this! Sati arises and falls away and
> then many moments without sati, it does not matter. We do not own it.
----------
> <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.
> -------------------------------------------
> N: No, not book study, but study with sati. Why the word study? It
> implies: developing understanding, just that.
--------
> <N: Because of ignorance we confuse the different doorways.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Thinking we're seeing when we're hearing? What confusion are you
> speaking of?
> ----------------------------------------------
> N: It seems we can see and hear at the same time, but only one
> citta arises at a time. Cittas are so fast and pa~n~naa is not keen
> enough to discern different moments. Or we confuse seeing and
> thinking of visible object as person. Or seeing and clinging to
> what is seen. Lots of confusion all the time. But it is good to
> know this, a beginning of understanding. Without the Dhamma I would
> not know at all about different cittas experiencing different objects.
>
> *******
Nina.



#92005 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:04 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Nina -

In a message dated 10/27/2008 3:37:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
vangorko@... writes:

Hi  Howard,
with 72 mails not yet read I must make it short, but this does  not
mean that I find your points not worth while!
Op 26-okt-2008,  om 14:36 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> N: .  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.
>  ----------------------------------------------
> N: I am afraid not. The  beginning should be right, otherwise there
> is not right  concentration but wrong concentration. The latter
> cannot change  into the former.
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I'm afraid not! ;-) The less attachment the better,  of course, but
mindful attention DOES loosen attachment. I did not say getting  absorbed in the
attachment and grooving on it, but mindfully examining it, and  that DOES lessen
it. But one has to actually engage in introspection to see that  this is so,
Nina.
---------------------------------------------------


----------
> N:<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.
> ----------------------------------------
> N: Different  people attach different meanings to the word calm.
> Calm is  passaddhi, a sobhana cetasika arising with each kusala
> citta.  Actually there are two: calm of citta and calm of cetasikas.
> It  does not mean that when one feels so calm there is wholesome  calm.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I speak of the calm that supports vipassana.
----------------------------------------


--------
> <Khun Sujin said:
>
> <<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.
--------
N: Seeing sees visible object only. But it seems  that we see people.
Wrong. There is not yet pa~n~naa that is keen  enough to discern
different cittas with different  characteristics.
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     This comes as no news to me, Nina. Seeing is  the seeing of visible
object, period. For me, "seeing a tree" is no more  than a way of speaking.
---------------------------------------------



--------

> H: The body door, however,
> is a more  suitable gateway for the realization of the tilakkhana
> and  dependent
> origination than the eye door.
>  ------------------------------------
> N: But then there is a kind of  selection, I am afraid, preferring
> this object to that and not  leaving the task to sati that arises
> because of its own  conditions and cannot be directed. Any reality
> that appears to  sati can be studied, awareness is needed again and
> again.  Hearing is real, and it appears naturally. Should it not be
>  known?
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Everything should be known. But the realization of  the tilakkhana and of
dependent origination when occurring with respect  to one category of
phenomena leads to a realization in all. It happens that  no Buddhist approach
to
meditation remains with a single domain, but expands to  choiceless awareness.
Note, though, the uncontestable emphasis that the  Buddha puts of mindfulness of
breath and of the body. That should NOT be ignored  as if it were not a fact.
-------------------------------------------------


Leaving it all to sati really helps to understand what sati is.  Not
trying to interefere, this is very important. It all depends on  sati
what reality is its object.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Nina you are not at that point. That point needs to  be reached.
Pretending that one is at that point  is counterproductive.
-------------------------------------------------


>  First the difference has to be known between the moments with sati
> and the moments without. The difference between nama and rupa
> should be known: hearing is not sound. Later on the arising and
> falling away can be realised. But not immediately the tilakka.
> People have such a hurry with this! Sati arises and falls away  and
> then many moments without sati, it does not matter. We do  not own it.
----------
> <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.
>  -------------------------------------------
> N: No, not book study, but  study with sati. Why the word study? It
> implies: developing  understanding, just that.
--------
> <N: Because of ignorance we  confuse the different doorways.
>  ----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>  Thinking we're seeing when we're hearing? What confusion are you
>  speaking of?
> ----------------------------------------------
> N:  It seems we can see and hear at the same time, but only one
>  citta arises at a time. Cittas are so fast and pa~n~naa is not keen
> enough to discern different moments.
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The fact that they do not co-occur is an  interesting tidbit. Collecting
such tidbits can make for nice book, but only  direct examination of what
actually is happening will lead to awakening.
-----------------------------------------------

Or we  confuse seeing and
> thinking of visible object as person. Or  seeing and clinging to
> what is seen. Lots of confusion all the  time. But it is good to
> know this, a beginning of  understanding. Without the Dhamma I would
> not know at all about  different cittas experiencing different objects.
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Always nice to know things, Nina. :-)
----------------------------------------------


>
> *******
Nina.
=============================
With metta,

Howard


/Entrances  to holiness are everywhere. The possibility of ascent is all the
time, even at  unlikely times and through unlikely places. There is no place
without the  Presence/

(From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform  prayerbook)


#92006 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:23 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  truth_aerator 
  Hi Phil,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:
>  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.
>

As I understand it, the Buddha would teach a person in a way that that
person would understand it. Buddha would not 'hide' secret information,
it is just that not every person is mature enough for some teachings.
Not every teaching applies to everyone (ex: monks vinaya to lay people).

One of Buddha's powers is:
"the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different
inclinations. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

SO he taught accordingly.


However I must warn, the Buddha did NOT have secret teachings.

===================================================================
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the
cessation of stress.'" "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html


Best wishes, 



#92007 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:30 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  truth_aerator 
  Hi TG and all,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
>
>
> 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.

There were like 20 early Buddhist schools. How are we sure that a
certain school, VADA (a negative connotation in the suttas, btw) is
correct?

I understand that the "strongest" school sets the orthodoxy... But
still...

>
>
> 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.
>>>>>>>>


Well said. If more people were as wise as you, we wouldn't have as
much Dhamma downfall as we have today.

Best wishes, 



#92008 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:34 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  truth_aerator 
  Hi TG, Howard, Scott and all,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
>
> TG:  Wrong directions are still "directions" aren't they?  There
>just lead  the wrong way.  Just like (the potential) "wrong
>mindfulness."

Yes. Wrong direction is STILL a direction, although where right
direction leads to the goal, the wrong directions leads to something
else. It still leads!

>
> The point in question is NOT whether or not wrong mindfulness leads
to awakening.  The point in question is whether or not it is a form
of mindfulness...a kind that does not assist in awakening, and
perhaps leads  away from it.
>


One can be mindful of actions done while robbing the bank in order
not to get caught. This IS mindfulness, of the wrong type.

And one can be mindful of satipatthana, which IS right mindfulness.


Best wishes, 



#92009 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:40 pm 
Subject: Re: Survey Quote  truth_aerator 
  Dear Nina,

> Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> When sati can be aware of the characteristics of these
> realities they can be known as nåma, different from rúpa. A feeling
> of being downcast or disheartened, of being in low spirits, without
> energy for kusala, is not rúpa. It is the nature of citta which is
> sasankhårika, there is at such moments a citta which is weak.
> ----------
> Nina.

What if a person feels depressed or in "bad mood" due and caused by
hormonal imbalances? If person has a chemical imbalance in their head,
is the resultant feeling  merely due to mental (not bodily) factors?

No. The mental feelings are in most (if not all cases) for humans, are
due to Material (rupa) causes. Not mental.


Best wishes, 



#92010 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:41 pm 
Subject: Re: Photo in Japan  hantun1 
  Dear James and Phil,

Good to see both of you looking fine.
I also like other pictures that James sent off-line.

All the best,
Han 



#92011 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:55 pm 
Subject: Speed of progress in Dhamma.  truth_aerator 
  Hello Phil and all,


You have wrote a very valid point. It is interesting how in Buddha's
day a person would hear few discources and end up reaching stream or
even becoming an Arahant. Some of us here have read 100x more
information than most Arahant knew in those days, and yet we are no
where near. There are a number of suttas where a person who didn't
like the Buddha, tried to argue with him, the Buddha would give him a
sutta and then that person would become a stream winner. Many of
these people belonged to other teachings prior to meeting the Buddha.
This meant to me that they were NOT Buddhist and they did NOT
have "right view" (it is impossible for one possesing of right view
to follow another teacher).

Check out suttas like MN92 Sela Sutta.  Here a Brahmin and his group
heard a sutta from the Buddha, they become convinced, joined the
Sangha,


"Then venerable Sela and his following, alone, withdrawn from the
crowd and secluded abode diligently for dispelling. Before long, for
whatever purpose sons of clansmen rightfully go forth from a
household, that highest end of the holy life, he here and now knew,
realized and abode. He knew, birth is destroyed, the holy life is
lived to the end, what should be done, is done, there is nothing more
to wish. Venerable Sela and his following became arahants. "
http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
Nikaya/Majjhima2/092-sela-e1.html

It is interesting regarding the sort of timescale that "before
long... he here and now .." meant...   7 DAYS ....!!! Wow. The Dhamma
of Buddha is Akaliko and Sandittiko.

What did they do in withdrawn from the crowd, in seclusion for 7 days?

Meditation, developing the "letting go" of everything.


Best wishes,




--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:
>   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
> 



#92012 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:55 pm 
Subject: Re: 'Meet Joe Black'  buddhatrue 
  Hi Han (and Howard),

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun <hantun1@...> wrote:
>
> 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!

So glad you were able to see it!  Must be kamma.  I wonder what the
older version of the movie is like.  The thing I liked most about
the movie is seeing Death as a constant companion waiting to take
you away at any moment- and being okay with that.

I think the Tibetans really know something in that they put so much
emphasis on Mindfulness of Death in their Buddhist practice.

Metta,
James 


#92013 From: "visitorfromtexas" <indriyabala@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:08 pm 
Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path  visitorfromt... 
  Hi KenH, -

> >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.
>KH: Free will, as I understand it, can belong only in a world of
persisting things.

T: The meaning of "free will" has not been explained by you yet, even
when I repeatedly asked a few times. So let's drop this issue.
............

>KH: 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: What does 'no self' mean to you? And why does understanding you
have anything to do with the Buddha's teaching of no self?

I understand that the Buddha and the Arahant disciples did not
teach "no self" in the sense of "no person, no one practices the
Dhamma" like you often say. I do believe that the teachings in the
Suttas avoid both extreme views of "there is no self" and "there is a
self".

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a
self: Thus it is said that the world is empty." [SN 35.85]

T: But, be careful, 'void of self and self's property' (su~n~nataa)
does not means "no self". It means no essence (saara) in the internal
and external ayatanas. I believe that  "no self" can be found in the
five aggregates, where self means 'permanent identity' or 'soul'.

"If, Aananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there a self?,' I had
replied to him: 'There is a self,' then, Aananda, that would be
siding with the recluses and brahmins who are eternalists.

"But if, Aananda, when asked: 'Is there not a self?' I had replied
that it does not exist, that, Aananda, would be siding with those
recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists. [SN 44.10]
.....................
>KH:  When you say Jon does not believe in an "effort to do
anything," I assume by "effort" you must be referring to free will.

T: Please do not assume; go back to the discussion that Jon had with
me and read what he exactly wrote.

>KH: 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: You twisted my words so badly! It is better that we discuss the
N8FP rather than this nonsense.
....................

> >Tep: 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?
-------------------

>KH: 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?

T: Just answer my question in a straightforward manner, please.

>KH: 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.

T: Forget the whole discussion headache, Ken. I no longer have an
appetite for this nonsense anymore.

So long,

Tep
=== 


#92014 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:15 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/27/2008 12:23:29 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
Yes, I understand the point.  :-)
----------------------------------------------

I  think the two hypothesis in play are whether wrong mindfulness is just
"no
mindfulness,mindfulness,<WBR>" or a ignorance based type of mindfulness t
arises.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
As  I have said, I think that wrong mindfulness is a counterfeit - a
mistaken  substitute for mindfulness sufficiently similar to be mistaken for
it.
Another example: Pity, the near-enemy of compassion, is an example of  wrong
compassion. It is counterfeit  compassion.



................................................


TG:  OK.  I thought the topic was whether or not there was  something called
"wrong mindfulness."  Not about misperceptions, mistaken  perceptions,
misdirection, etc.  I figured we all knew "wrong mindfulness"  was not a factor
that
would lead to enlightenment.  The question then  becomes, is "mindfulness"
always "right mindfulness," or is there a type of  mindfulness, associated with
unwholesome states, that is "wrong  mindfulness."  Since the Suttas state the
latter, I am leaning in that  direction.


You mentioned "monitoring" in regards to mindfulness's meaning.  I  agree.
Well then, can the mind do this "monitoring" in association with  unwholesome
states.  I'm thinking yes.  But it would be delusion  based.  Which would also
mean that "right mindfulness" is generally  associated with insight, but
always with wholesome states.  There are many  instances of mindfulness
throughout
the Suttas and plenty of varieties of it in  just the Satipatthana Sutta
alone.  I think in all instances, its taken for  granted that 'mindfulness'
means
"right mindfulness," except for maybe a handful  of Suttas that specifically
mention "wrong mindfulness."


Let's kill Alex for bringing this up eh?   LOL


TG



#92015 From: "visitorfromtexas" <indriyabala@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:25 pm 
Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path  visitorfromt... 
  Hi, Suan --

---"abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Ken, Tep, and Alex
>

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.
================

Don't worry. I am not going to post a message in this thread anymore.

Tep
=== 


#92016 From: "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:43 pm 
Subject: Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries  kenhowardau 
  Hi Phil,

Ph: >   Well, we had better drop this fun little detour now, Ken,
before
> someone slaps us.


OK, but please remember something that other people at DSG have
pointed out: It could be a loooong time before you have another
opportunity to hear the true Dhamma. In the meantime there might be a
million or more lifetimes in which you are fortunate enough to hear
conventional wisdom: "Try harder! Be a better person! Meditate!" But
opportunities such as the one you have now are truly rare.

Ken H



>
>    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.)
>
> 


#92017 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:44 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

TG: "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."

Scott: I really enjoy the study, TG.  Let's consider The Milinda
Pa~nha (T. W. Rhys-Davids, trans.) found in the Khuddakanikaaya - a sutta:

"12. The king said: 'What, Naagasena, is the characteristic mark of
mindfulness?'

'Repetition, O king, and keeping up.'

'And how is repetition the mark of mindfulness?'

'As mindfulness, O king, springs up in his heart he repeats over the
good and evil, right and wrong, slight and important, dark and light
qualities, and those that resemble them, saying to himself: "These are
the four modes of keeping oneself ready and mindful (cattaaro
satipa.t.thaanaa), these the four modes of spiritual effort (cattaaro
sammappadhaanaa), these the four bases of extraordinary powers
(cattaaro iddhipaadaa), these the five organs of the moral sense
(pa~ncindriyaani), these the five mental powers (pa~nca balaani),
these the seven bases of Arahatship (satta bojjha"ngaa), these the
eight divisions of the Excellent Way (ariyo a.t.tha"ngiko maggo), this
is serenity (samatho) and this insight (vipassanaa), this is wisdom
(vijjaa) and this emancipation (vimuttii)." Thus does the recluse
follow after those qualities that are desirable, and not after those
that are not; thus does he cultivate those which ought to be
practised, and not those which ought not. That is how repetition is
the mark of mindfulness.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'It is like the treasurer of the imperial sovran, who reminds his
royal master early and late of his glory, saying: "So many are thy war
elephants, O king, and so many thy cavalry, thy war chariots and thy
bowmen, so much the quantity of thy money, and gold, and wealth, may
your Majesty keep yourself in mind thereof.'

'And how, Sir, is keeping up a mark of mindfulness?'

'As mindfulness springs up in his heart, O king, he searches out the
categories of good qualities and their opposites, saying to himself:
"Such and such qualities are good, and such bad; such and such
qualities helpful, and such the reverse." Thus does the recluse make
what is evil in himself to disappear, and keeps up what is good. That
is how keeping up is the mark of mindfulness.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'It is like the confidential adviser of that imperial sovran who
instructs him in good and evil, saying: "These things are bad for the
king and these good, these helpful and these the reverse." And thus
the king makes the evil in himself die out, and keeps up the good.'

'Well put, Naagasena!'"

Scott: Buddhagosa referenced the above noted passage of the Milinda
Pa~nha in Atthasalinii, when discussing mindfulness.  I'll give his
commentary in the next post.

In the above, it seems clear to me that we are indeed dealing with a
mental factor that is only found arising conascently with kusala
citta, and not with akusala.  That it "...make[s] what is evil...to
disappear, and keeps up what is good..." is proof, to me, that it is
only kusala.  Micchaa-sati is not sati-proper, but consists of
something else.  What this is, I'm still considering.  I think I agree
with Howard on this so far.

'Micchaa', by the way is "...interchanging, separate, opposite,
contrary...wrongly, in a wrong way, wrong, false..." according to the
PTS PED.  I'd suggest that the sense of the term 'wrong mindfulness'
(micchaa-sati) is that it is the opposite of, or 'not' sati.  It is
'false'.

Sincerely,

Scott.

Sincerely,

Scott. 



#92018 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:50 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Talking with Scott - questioning the commentaries  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Nina



In a message dated 10/27/2008 1:06:22 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
vangorko@... writes:

N: The  Buddha spoke all the time about dhammas or dhatus appearing
through the  six doors. Elements. All the time about seeing , hearing
etc. See M III,  115, the Manifold Elements: the element of eye, the
element of material  shape [visible object], the element of visual
consciousness.consciousne

.......................................


TG:  Yes, and he made the ontologically oriented observation that  these
states are empty, hollow, void, alien, coreless, insubstantial, like a  mirage,
like a conjurer's trick.


I don't deny the elements and aggregates.  What I do object to, is the
designating them as "realities," 'ultimate realities," "having own
characteristics," etc.  I strongly believe that these designations direct  the
mind in such a
way as to make it near impossible for complete detachment  from phenomena.


.........................................................



No  need to call them paramattha dhammas, but in this way they are
distinguished from notions like table or tree.
Why characteristics?  Because his teaching is about direct experience.

............................................................

TG:  Direct experience is one of many many aspects of his  teaching.  His
teaching IS NOT ABOUT direct experience.  Direct  Experience is one method for
cultivating insight.


.................................................................



Characteristics are experienced, no need to think of  them.

.............................................................


TG:  The term "characteristics" means that the experience has already  been
classified.  It has already been thought about.  Worse than that,  you believe
these experiences are ultimate realities with THEIR OWN  characteristics.
This means "experiences" are being inputted into a theory  about them.  The idea
that such a proposition has not been "hammered into a  view" is folly IMO.


........................................................................



Why the present moment? Because the teaching is about experience,  not
thinking of what is gone already.

...................................................................


TG:  The teaching is about neither.   In fact, a  great deal of the Buddha's
teaching is about "things gone by."  Reflections  on impermanence, etc.  You
are focusing on one aspect of the  teaching at the exclusion or diminution of
many other important aspects of  the teaching.  It is out of whack.



“…formally  and also now, I make known just suffering and the ending of
suffering.�
(The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 938)

..................................................................




You want me to prove whether characteristics and paramattha dhammas
are words used in the sutta or not. No, not possible to prove. But
this does not matter to me. His teaching is about what can be
experienced now through the six doors, only elements, devoid of self.
For me that is the essence.

............................................................

TG:  A very important aspect indeed.  But his teaching is so much  more.  The
focus on this one aspect has lead to "tunnel vision" in many and  lack of a
well balanced comprehension of the overall teaching of the  Buddha.  Although
this alone does not bother me.  What is bothersome  is that "dependent" and
"own" cannot coincide.


...........................................................




--------

> T.G.: 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?
-----
N: So long as there is no clear understanding of  conditioned
phenomena there cannot be detachment or turning away from  them. How
could one turn away from what is not fully and thoroughly  understood
yet? It all happens when it is the right time. Meanwhile,
understanding can be developed very naturally.
-------
In your post  to Sarah: dhammas, why plural?

..................................................

TG:  I use the plural as a way to dismiss "dhammas" as I see the  (plural)
term flawed because it brings on a vision as here stated by Howard --  "The
perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the
admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true,
separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. To me,
this
is an odd amalgam of substantialism and annihilationism, and not a  middle
way."


The KS adherents use "dhammas" regularly.  I use it to call attention  to it
as a faulty vision.  I'm curious though...since those favorable to  your view
use the plural all the time, why and I questioned when I use  it???   Double
standard???   Don't worry about it....I am  called into question regularly
about things that KS adherents say all the time  without question.   LOL


TG OUT






Dhammapada, vs. 279: sabbe dhammaa anattaa. Dhammaa in Pali is the
plural of dhamma.
-----
Nina.




#92019 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:37 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG (and Alex) -

In a message dated 10/27/2008 9:16:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:


In a  message dated 10/27/2008 12:23:29 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
Yes, I understand the  point.   :-)
----------------------------------------------

I  think the  two hypothesis in play are whether wrong mindfulness is just
"no
mindfulness,mindfulness,<WBR>" or a ignorance based type of  mindfulness t
arises.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
As  I have  said, I think that wrong mindfulness is a counterfeit - a
mistaken   substitute for mindfulness sufficiently similar to be mistaken for

it.
Another example: Pity, the near-enemy of compassion, is an  example of  wrong
compassion. It is counterfeit   compassion.



................................................


TG:   OK.  I thought the topic was whether or not there was  something
called
"wrong mindfulness."
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I've been trying to explain what I think the term  means.
--------------------------------------------

Not about misperceptions, mistaken  perceptions,
misdirection,  etc.  I figured we all knew "wrong mindfulness"  was not a
factor  that
would lead to enlightenment.  The question then  becomes,  is "mindfulness"
always "right mindfulness," or is there a type of   mindfulness, associated
with
unwholesome states, that is "wrong   mindfulness."  Since the Suttas state
the
latter, I am leaning in  that  direction.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I think the term 'wrong mindfulness'  rarely occurs in the suttas. I
understand it to mean what I have  explained.
-----------------------------------------------




You mentioned "monitoring" in regards to mindfulness's  meaning.  I  agree.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The question is WHAT is being monitored and how. In  understand sati to
be the monitoring of the mind that amounts to a *remembering*  to stay present
with what is actually going on in the mind and avoiding getting  lost in sloth
& torpor, excitement, and thought. If there is a "wrong"  version of that, I
don't know what it would be. Wrong mindfulness is not a  variety of
mindfulness - it is a pseudo-mindfulness, a sham mockery.
--------------------------------------------


Well  then, can the mind do this "monitoring" in association with
unwholesome
states.  I'm thinking yes.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Well, you see, I'm not at all sure that I buy the  idea that a state need
be all wholesome or all unwholesome. Moreover, there are  degrees of
wholesomeness and unwholesomeness. But, hey, I guess I'm just a  counterfeit
Theravadin! (Or, maybe a "wrong Theravadin! ;-))
--------------------------------------------

But it would be delusion  based.  Which would also
mean that  "right mindfulness" is generally  associated with insight, but
always  with wholesome states.  There are many  instances of mindfulness
throughout
the Suttas and plenty of varieties of it in  just the  Satipatthana Sutta
alone.  I think in all instances, its taken  for  granted that 'mindfulness'
means
"right mindfulness," except for  maybe a handful  of Suttas that specifically
mention "wrong  mindfulness."
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Right mindfulness (or, as I would say, mindfulness)  enables
distinguishing wholesome from unwholesome cetasikas. That requires  observing
the
unwholesome ones and knowing their unwholesome nature. The sati  that enables
that is
quite wholesome, IMO.
---------------------------------------------




Let's kill Alex for bringing this up eh?    LOL
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Excellent! But mindfully, eh? ;-))
-----------------------------------------




TG
=========================
With metta,
Howard


/He who  does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like
flowers  which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker
gives up the  here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./

(From  the Uraga Sutta)



#92020 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:45 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard


In a message dated 10/27/2008 8:36:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

I'm  just a counterfeit
Theravadin! (Or, maybe a "wrong Theravadin!  ;-))
--------------------------------------------
...................................................

TG:  That's bogus.  You're way off the mark here.    LOL


..............................................................



Let's kill Alex for bringing this up eh?  LOL
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
Excellent!  But mindfully, eh?  ;-))
-----------------------------------------

......................................................

TG:  Yea, Alex would appreciate that type of send off.    ;-)


TG OUT



#92021 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:55 pm 
Subject: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi James and all

> I think the Tibetans really know something in that they put so much
> emphasis on Mindfulness of Death in their Buddhist practice.

   I don't know much about Tibetan Buddhism so I will assume you're
right, but let's not underappreciate the emphasis the Buddha lays on
the above in the Pali canon. For example, I have an AN anthology where
there are 5 or maybe 6 suttas related specifically to the topic, along
with probably a dozen others (guessing roughly) in which there is
concern about destinations in the next life.

   Let me post some of them, starting today with one that is not on
Access to Insight and is therefore probably underappreciated. It's one
entitled "The Divine Messengers" by BB, AN 3:35.

   A man who has done bad deeds dies and finds himself in front of Yama,
the Lord of Death in Hell. One of the warders of Hell says to
Yama "this man, your majesty, had no respect for father and mother, nor
for ascetics and brahmins, nor did he honour the elders of the family.
May your majest inflict due punishment on him!" Yama questions the
man:"Didn't you ever see, my good man, the first divine messenger
appearing among humankind?" And the man says no he didn't. "But,"
continues Yama, "didn't you ever see a woman or a man, aged eighty,
nienty or a hundred years, frail, bent likea roof bracket, crooked,
leaning on a stick, shakily going along, ailing, youth and vigour gone,
with broken teeth, with grey and scanty hair or none, wrinkled, with
blotched limbs?" The man replies "yes, Lord, I have seen this."
   Then King Yama says to him: "My good man, didn't it ever occur to
you, an intelligent and mature person,'I too am subject to old age and
cannot escape it.Let me now do noble deeds by body, speech and mind?"
   "No Lord," admits the man, by now wetting his pants, "I could not do
it, I was negligent."
   King Yama sighs and rubs his eyes, tired of this business, no doubt,
of constantly having to punish humans who have screwed up their rare
human birth."Through negligence, my good man, you have failed to do
noble deeds by body, speech and mind. Well, you will be treated as
begits your negligence. That evil action of yours was not done by
mother or father, brothers, sisters, friends or companions, norby
relatives, devas, ascetics, or brahmins. But you alone have done that
evil deed, and you will have to experience the fruit."

   And then the Lord of Death asks the man whether he saw the second and
third messengers (a seriously ill woman or man lying in his own filth,
unable to lift himself out of it, and a woman or man one, two or three
days dead) and on hearing that the man did see them but did not wisely
resolve to do noble deeds by body, speech and mind, Yama repeats the
above Very Bad News. So the man is cast into Hell.

   Now some people who don't want Buddhism to be a religion will object
to the above, but it was the way the Buddha taught, and it cannot be
changed. People are quite right to point out that reflection on
momentary death that is the rising and falling away again of cittas is
also taught in Buddhism, but as far as I know (my research in this
series will answer that question) it was taught only in the
commentaries. It is fair and good to reflect in those terms, but it is
not the primary means nor anywhere near the primary means by which the
Buddha taught mindfulness of death.

   I wonder if these "divine messengers" are devas who take human form
to teach us?

   The other day I had an interesting experience. I was walking along a
street when lust locked on to a sexy woman up in front of me. "Mmm", I
said, I actually said it, "the Buddha can't beat that!" And just then
to my right I saw an incredibly decrepit old woman who was moving along
by a walker, but moving only one step every 30 seconds or so towards a
supermarket. She snapped me out of my lustful delight in ripe young
flesh and brough me back to the reality of birth, illness, old age and
death. She was a messenger in the sense of the sutta above. I see these
messengers and reflect in the light of them and this reflection
conditions some abstinence from wrong deeds so I can feel much, much
more confident that I could before that I am preparing wisely for
death, which could come at any moment. (As the next sutta in this
series tells us.)

   metta,

   phil

  p.s I saw Joe Black years ago, when Naomi was going through a Brad
Pitt stage. I'll have to see it again on your recommendation. At the
time it didn't make a huge impression on me, but that was before I came
across the Dhamma. 


#92022 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:09 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  philofillet 
  Hi Alex

> As I understand it, the Buddha would teach a person in a way that
that
> person would understand it. Buddha would not 'hide' secret
information,

   (big snip)


   Yes, thanks, you're right. A clumsy title on my part.



  BTW, thanks also for a post about the observer in meditation about
a week ago or so, I meant to get back to it but failed to do so.
Nothing more to say on that topic. If people don't (or no longer)
meditate, (or "formally meditate" to be polite) they can't
understand what meditators ("formal meditators") are talking about.
These days I am having a very fruitful discussion offlist with Tep
about meditation. We're discussing things that could never be
discussed here without being sent shooting off the rails into Flog a
Dead Horse Canyon. And that's fair enough. This excellent group was
not set up to discuss meditation.

   metta,

   phil 



#92023 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu0@...> 
Date: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:04 pm 
Subject: Universal Friendliness!  bhikkhu0 
  How to Practise Universal Friendliness:


Begin by extending Friendliness towards yourself:


* Aham avero homi: May I be free from ill-will.

* Aby�pajjo homi: May I be free from enmity.

* Anīgho homi: May I be free from affliction.

* Sukhī att�nam parihar�mi: May I be happy.

* Dukkh� mucc�mi: May I be free from suffering.

* Yath�-laddha-sampattito m� vigacch�mi: May I not be parted from the good
fortune I have attained.

* Kammassako: I am the owner of my kamma and must inherit its results.


Then extend Friendliness to the guardian deities of your house:


* Imasmim gehe �rakkhadevat� aver� hontu: May the guardian deities in this
house be free from anger.

* Aby�pajj� hontu: May they be free from enmity.

* Anīgh� hontu: May they be free from affliction.

* Sukhī att�nam pariharantu: May they be happy.

* Dukkh� muccantu: May they be free from suffering.

* Yath�-laddha-sampattito m� vigacchantu: May they not be parted from the good
fortune they have attained.

* Kammassak�: They are owners of their kamma and will inherit its results.


Next, extend Friendliness to your parents, teachers, relatives, and friends:


* Amh�kam m�tapitu �cariya-ñ�ti-mitta-sammuh� aver� hontu: May my mother
and father, teacher, relatives,
and associates be free from anger.

* Aby�pajj� hontu: May they be free from enmity.

* Anīgh� hontu: May they be free from affliction.

* Sukhī att�nam pariharantu: May they be happy.

* Dukkh� muccantu: May they be free from suffering.

* Yath�-laddha-sampattito m� vigacchantu: May they not be parted from the good
fortune they have attained.

* Kammassak�: They are owners of their kamma and will inherit its results.


Then extend Friendliness to all kinds of living beings:


* Sabbe satt�, sabbe p�n�, sabbe bhūt�, sabbe puggal�, sabbe atta-bh�va-
pariy�pann�, sabb� itthiyo, sabbe puris�, sabbe ariy�, sabbe anariy�,
sabbe dev�, sabbe manuss�, sabbe vinip�tik� aver� hontu:
May all sentient things, all breathing things, all beings, all persons, all
individuals, all women, all men, all noble ones, all ordinary persons, all
deities, all human beings, all those destined for the states of loss, be free
from anger.

* Aby�pajj� hontu: May they be free from enmity.

* Anīgh� hontu: May they be free from affliction.

* Sukhī att�nam pariharantu: May they be happy.

* Dukkh� muccantu: May they be free from suffering.

* Yath�-laddha-sampattito m� vigacchantu: May they not be parted from the good
fortune they have attained.

* Kammassak�: All beings are the owners of their kamma and must inherit its
results.


Finally, extend Friendliness in all directions:


* Puratthim�ya dis�ya, dakkhin�ya dis�ya, pacchim�ya dis�ya, uttar�ya
dis�ya, puratthim�ya anudis�ya,
dakkhịn�ya anudis�ya, pacchim�ya anudis�ya, uttar�ya anudis�ya,
hetthim�ya dis�ya, uparim�ya dis�ya:
in the east, the south, the west, the north, the south-east, the south-west, the
north-west, the north-east, below,
and above.

* Sabbe satt�, sabbe p�n�, sabbe bhūt�, sabbe puggal�, sabbe
atta-bh�va-pariy�pann�, sabb� itthiyo,
sabbe puris�, sabbe ariy�, sabbe anariy�, sabbe dev�, sabbe manuss�, sabbe
vinip�tik�, aver� hontu:
May all sentient things, all breathing things, all beings, all persons, all
individuals, all women, all men, all noble ones,
all ordinary persons, all deities, all human beings, all those destined for the
states of loss, be free from anger.

* Aby�pajj� hontu: May they be free from enmity.

* Anīgh� hontu: May they be free from affliction.

* Sukhī att�nam pariharantu: May they be happy.

* Dukkh� muccantu: May they be free from suffering.

* Yath�-laddha-sampattito m� vigacchantu: May they not be parted from the good
fortune they have attained.

* Kammassak�: All beings every where are the owners of their kamma and will
inherit its results.




Forwarded by a friend.

<....>
Infinite Friendliness! 


#92024 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:29 am 
Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

Chapter 5.

Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth.

We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Fives, Ch VI, §7,
Things to be contemplated) that the Buddha said to the monks:

“Monks, these five things ought to be often contemplated by woman and
man, by house-dweller and by him gone forth. What five?

Old age can come upon me; I have not outstripped old age!- this ought
to be often contemplated by woman and man, by house-dweller and by
him gone forth.

Disease can come upon me; I have not outstripped disease!...

Death can come upon me; I have not outstripped death!...

All things near and dear to me are subject to variableness, subject
to separation!...

I am the result of my own deeds; heir to deeds; deeds are matrix;
deeds are kin; deeds are foundation; whatever deed I do, whether good
or bad, I shall become heir to it!- this ought to be often
contemplated by woman and man, by house-dweller and by him gone
forth....”

The Buddha then explained that through the first three contemplations
the pride of youth, the pride of health and the pride of life are got
rid of or reduced. Through the contemplation of the fact that those
near and dear are subject to variableness and separation, passionate
desire is got rid of or reduced. Through the contemplation of kamma
and vipåka defilements are got rid of or reduced. We read further on
in this sutta:

“Monks, the ariyan disciple reflects thus: I am not the only one who
is subject to old age, who has not outstripped old age; but
wheresoever there are beings, coming and going, faring on and
arising, all are subject to old age, none has outstripped it. And
while he often contemplates this thing, the Way comes into being; and
that Way he follows, makes become and develops; and in doing so the
fetters are got rid of, the tendencies are removed.”

The Buddha taught the truth about our life, he taught the truth of
all conditioned realities which are impermanent and not self. The
development of the eightfold Path eventually leads to the eradication
of defilements at the attainment of arahatship. According to the
Commentary, the “Manorathapúraní”, the Buddha taught in this sutta by
way of these five contemplations vipassanå and lokuttara magga, the
supramundane Path arising later on.

Do we realize the truth of these five contemplations, or do we just
read this sutta and then forget about it? Do we realize that we are
becoming older, even each splitsecond?

******

Nina.



#92025 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:33 am 
Subject: Survey Quote.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (IV, Kindred sayings on Sense,
Second Fifty, Ch IV, § 85, Void):

Then the venerable Ånanda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at
one side the venerable Ånanda said to the Exalted One: “ ‘Void is the
world! Void is the world!’ is the saying, lord. Pray, lord, how far
does this saying go?”
“Because the world is void of the self, Ånanda, or of what belongs to
the self, therefore is it said ‘Void is the world.’ And what, Ånanda,
is void of the self or of what belongs to the self?
The eye is void of the self or of what belongs to the self. Visible
object is void of the self or of what belongs to the self. Seeing-
consciousness is void of the self or of what belongs to the self. Eye-
contact is void of the self or of what belongs to the self. Pleasant
feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling which arises owing
to eye-contact is void of the self or of what belongs to the self.
(The same is said with regard to the other doorways.)
That is why, Ånanda, it is said ‘Void is the world.’ “

Voidness cannot be realized so long as there is ignorance of
realities. One should know what voidness is and of what there is
voidness. One should know as it really is the meaning of voidness of
the self and of what belongs to the self. The dhammas which can be
experienced through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the
bodysense and the mind-door arise and then fall away, they are void
of the self and of what belongs to the self.
Some people believe that they experience at times that there is not
really anything which belongs to a self. They wonder why they did not
have such an experience before. Formerly they used to believe that
there was a self and things belonging to a self. However, because
they often listened to the Dhamma they came to the conclusion that
there is not anything which belongs to a self and that they should
not cling to such a wrong view anymore. This is only thinking about
the truth. Theoretical understanding is not enough, because it cannot
eradicate defilements. If a person does not realize that he has
merely theoretical understanding he may mistakenly believe that he
has already a great deal of paññå and that he will soon attain
enlightenment. People may think in such a way because they have found
out something they did not know before and they take this knowledge
for something extraordinary.

********
Nina.



#92026 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:52 am 
Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  nilovg 
  Hi Howard,
Op 27-okt-2008, om 23:04 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> <Leaving it all to sati really helps to understand what sati is. Not
> <trying to interefere, this is very important. It all depends on sati
> <what reality is its object.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Nina you are not at that point. That point needs to be reached.
> Pretending that one is at that point is counterproductive.
-------
N: No matter what level of understanding there is, this is a basic
principle that should be known and understood right from the
beginning. Otherwise one takes for sati what is not. Thus, I am also
thinking of satipatthaana that is still tender, as Scott expresses it.
This morning I heard Kh Sujin speak about anattaa: <Do we understand
anattaa? Or do we only know it on the level of thinking? At this
moment sati and pa~n~naa are anattaa.>
People may talk about anatta but only know the 'story' of anattaa. it
means that nobody owns realities and we have to apply it now.
As you know we discussed before about three levels: understanding the
truth, sacca ~naa.na. Direct awareness and understanding of it, kicca
~naa.na. The direct realisation of the truth, kata ~naa.na. As to the
first level, this is already firm understanding that dhammas
appearing now are non-self. Thus, sati cannot be owned, regulated,
directed to this or that object.
It means: 'let' sati arise, and 'let' it take any object, no matter
kusala or akusala, pleasant or unpleasant. If that is so, it can
arise unexpectedly, unplanned. Then one can understand that it is
truly anatta.

As to mindfulness of breathing, this has been discussed so often
here. Nowhere have I read that everybody has to be engaged with this
subject. People had already developed this subject before the
Buddha's time.

As Jon said long ago:
<the Anapanasati Sutta is a teaching on attaining to the superior
kind of
insight known as 'insight both ways', based on jhana, in this case jhana
with breath as object.  As such, is directed at those who have already
attained jhana with breath as object or who are potentially capable of
doing so.  For such individuals, breath is already a naturally arising
object in their daily life, a daily life that is far different from
yours
and mine. >And also:
<As I have indicated, the sutta was given for the benefit
of those (monks) who are already highly adept at attending to the breath
(actually, its nimitta) as an object of samatha, and for those
persons the
sutta is indeed about the discernment of an 'everyday object'.>

I would add:the bhikkhus the sutta was addressed to were highly
adept, they were arahats  or they had accumulations to attain
arahatship. We read even after the first tetrad in the Visuddhimagga:
<After he has thus reached the four noble paths in due succession and
has become established in the fruition of arahatship, he at last
attains to the nineteen kinds of “Reviewing Knowledge”, and he
becomes fit to receive the highest gifts from the world with its
deities.>
Nina.


#92027 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:26 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self"  jonoabb 
  Hi Howard

> 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.
> ---------------------------------------------------

Any time there's a moment of consciousness accompanied by panna,
there's kusala of the level of either samatha or satipatthana/
vipassana.

If satipatthana, then at that moment there is guarding of the sense-
doors, right concentration and right effort.  Truly a moment of
"practice" (even if only at the level of pariyatti).

> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------

I was referring to your earlier comment to the effect that reflecting
on dhamma as spoken of in the suttas was no different to academic
study.

There is a difference, and it's an important one.  As the passage
quoted explains, the academic's interest lies in the words or ideas
being written/read about, and he has no appreciation that what is
being read relates to the dhammas of the present moment.

Jon 


#92028 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:27 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Losing everything, passing away, 'just like now!'  jonoabb 
  Hi Nina

> 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.

I know what you mean about the Thai being somehow more helpful.  But
I'm never sure if it's to do with the language alone or with other
factors also such as the differences in the 2 audience groups (don't
ask me to try to describe what that difference is, anyone ;-))

But I think I get different points from each of the 2 languages, so
I'm happy to listen to either ;-))

Jon 



#92029 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:30 am 
Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa  jonoabb 
  Hi Han

> 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.

Sorry, Han.  I thought I had given a direct answer.  I think the
problem is that my "direct" is usually other peoples' "indirect" ;-))

My answer is (using youf 'Yes or No' format):
Yes, useful in helping us to appreciate how reflecting on things
heard can condition the arising of kusala; but no, not in the more
direct sense of describing the development of insight, as can be
found in some other suttas.

> I notice that you have also avoided the words 'gradual training.'
You used, instead, the words 'gradual discourse.'

I wasn't avoiding the term "training".  I think "gradual training" is
an appropriate translation for anupubbasikkhaa, but not for
anupubbikathaa, and it was the anupubbikathaa that we were discussing.

Nyanatiloka uses "gradual instruction" for anupubbikathaa, which I'm
also happy to accept.
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/aanupubbii_kathaa.htm

> I think you are disagreeable to any kind of 'training.'

I have no problem with "training".  But my understanding of what it
means in the texts may differ from yours ;-))

> 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. >

Yes, I do think that (and I know you will think differently).  But I
was really pointing to the matter of whether it could mean one thing
then and another thing now (whatever that thing might be).  That to
me is a surprising notion, since I regard the matters taught by the
Buddha as being applicable for all beings and all times.  If you'd
care to say anything more on this I'd be interested to hear it.

Thanks for the further comments.

Jon 



#92030 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:39 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  philofillet 
  Hi Nina and other Pali experts


> I am the result of my own deeds; heir to deeds; deeds are matrix;
> deeds are kin; deeds are foundation; whatever deed I do, whether
good
> or bad, I shall become heir to it!-

  I am very fond of this passage and intrigued by "deeds are matrix" I
went to try to find the Pali but failed. Could someone kindly provide
it for the above passage? Thanks for your time.

   metta,

   phil 



#92031 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:41 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6. - To Phil  jonoabb 
  Hi Phil (and Nina)

I guess you didn't see the below, otherwise you'd have come back with
a "told you so" ;-))

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom
<vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
> ...
> 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. ..."

See the "Study it now"?  I think that's something you brought up
recently as indicating the suggestion that there should be deep
understanding arising (or something like that; I may not have
understood your point fully).

But to me this simply says:  The study of seeing (for example) now is
the development of satipatthana.

In other words, the development of satipatthana is to do with only
presently occurring individual phenomena.

But you may see it differently ;-))

Jon 



#92032 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:51 am 
Subject: Re: anupubbasikkhaa  hantun1 
  Dear Jon,
Thank you very much for your elaborate explanation.
I am sorry I have no further comments.
Han 



#92033 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:54 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  nilovg 
  Dear Phil,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 11:39 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven:

> I am very fond of this passage and intrigued by "deeds are matrix" I
> went to try to find the Pali but failed. Could someone kindly provide
> it for the above passage?
-------
N: Matrix is sometimes rendered as womb. That is in pali: yoni, but I
do not have the text.
Thus, we are born from kamma, kamma produces the rebirthconsciousness
and all bhavangacittas during that life, and also seeing and the
other sense-cognitions arising during that life.
-------
Nina.



#92034 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:57 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self"  nilovg 
  Dear Jon and Howard,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 11:26 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven:

> As the passage
> quoted explains, the academic's interest lies in the words or ideas
> being written/read about, and he has no appreciation that what is
> being read relates to the dhammas of the present moment.
-------
N: Now, Howard, the consequences are far reaching. People may read
all the suttas being deaf and dumb to the present reality now. Then
they do not profit to the fulkl from the teachings.
Nina.



#92035 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:04 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Dear Phil,
very good post. I like it very much. And the sutta is really
Lodewijk's favorite. He read it aloud once at the Foundation for Kh.
Sujin. We had a lovely session about it.
I had to laugh at your description of discussions about meditation
with Tep and the reaction at dsg you predicted. It is not all that
bad ;-))
Nina.
Op 28-okt-2008, om 3:55 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven:

> The other day I had an interesting experience. I was walking along a
> street when lust locked on to a sexy woman up in front of me. "Mmm", I
> said, I actually said it, "the Buddha can't beat that!" And just then
> to my right I saw an incredibly decrepit old woman who was moving
> along
> by a walker, but moving only one step every 30 seconds or so towards a
> supermarket. She snapped me out of my lustful delight in ripe young
> flesh and brough me back to the reality of birth, illness, old age and
> death. She was a messenger in the sense of the sutta above. I see
> these
> messengers and reflect in the light of them and this reflection
> conditions some abstinence from wrong deeds so I can feel much, much
> more confident that I could before that I am preparing wisely for
> death, which could come at any moment. (As the next sutta in this
> series tells us.)



#92036 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:05 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  scottduncan2 
  Dear Phil (and Nina),

Regarding:

Ph: "I am very fond of this passage and intrigued by 'deeds are
matrix' I went to try to find the Pali but failed. Could someone
kindly provide it for the above passage? Thanks for your time."

Abhi.nhapaccavekkhitabba.thaanasutta.m

"...I am the result of my own deeds (kammassakomhi); heir to deeds
(kammadaayaado); deeds are matrix (kammayoni); deeds are kin
(kammabandhu); deeds are foundation (kammapa.tisara.no); whatever deed
I do, whether good or bad, I shall become heir to it! (Ya.m kamma.m
karissaami â€" kalyaa.na.m vaa paapaka.m vaa -)..."

Sincerely,

Scott. 



#92037 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:05 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6. - To Phil  philofillet 
  Hi Jon

> I guess you didn't see the below, otherwise you'd have come back
with
> a "told you so" ;-))

    No, I think it was a little different because I objected to "is
there seeing now, study it, or panna cannot develop." I objected to
that because there is a clear (to me) imperative on trying to have
the insight that knows nama (seeing) from rupa (visible object.) I
can't personally understand what else "study seeing" could mean.
>

>
> See the "Study it now"?  I think that's something you brought up
> recently as indicating the suggestion that there should be deep
> understanding arising (or something like that; I may not have
> understood your point fully).

    I think the wording should be something like "there can be
studying of it" or something like that. Using the imperative voice
is not right for expressing the way that studying would arise, I
think. It could be a matter of wording, or there could be a kind of
subtle wrong view lurking behind the way A.S teaches on that point.
It could be a sign of trying to control sati and panna in the same
way others are accused of trying to do so, I think, double standards
at work...something for you guys to keep reflecting on, in my
opinion...all those "shoulds" that I keep objecting to. In a way,
you invite scrutiny in this area since you are so strict with others
about trying to control cittas etc...

   metta,

   phil 



#92038 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:07 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  philofillet 
  Hi Scott

  Thank you kindly!

   metta,
   phil
>
>
> Abhi.nhapaccavekkhitabba.thaanasutta.m
> 



#92039 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:23 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana - Ariya  scottduncan2 
  Dear Sarah,

Thanks for the reply.  Regarding:

Me: "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 consciousness."

S: "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?..."

Scott: Yes, that makes sense.  I think I'm clear that the reviewing
cittas are not lokuttara.  I was thinking that the object of these
sort of cittas is (or was?) lokuttara.  Can you clarify what the
object is exactly?

S: "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?"

Scott:  I think there's a lesson here - which I like! :-) These
paccevekkana cittas, then, only arise in their order and in a sequence
after the arising of the Path.  These are not lokuttara, which I knew,
but I had thought that this sort of reviewing was possible again
thereafter.  I now wonder if this is a once-only sort of thing like
the arising of the Path itself, following on but just one time.  Can
you clarify how you see this?   In the Vissuddhimagga text this would
seem to be the case.

Sincerely,

Scott. 



#92040 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:02 am 
Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: Threes (19 - 23)  scottduncan2 
  Dear All,

The next installment following #91667 Threes (13-18) (cy: #91797, 91824):

CSCD

Tii.ni sa.myojanaani - sakkaayadi.t.thi, vicikicchaa,
siilabbataparaamaaso.

Walshe

DN 33.1.10(19) Three fetters: of personality belief, of doubt, of
attachment to rite and ritual.

Olds

[3.19]  Three yokes to rebirth.  One-truth-view, vacillation, faith in
good deeds and ethical conduct.

RD's

[3.19] Three 'fetters,' to wit, the false opinion concerning
individuality, doubt, inverted [judgment] as to rule and ritual.

**olds: [3.19] (sa'nyojanaani) san=one's own; yoja=yoke; ja=birth;
a=to; ni=down. See: The 10 Fundamental Attachments. Walshe and Rhys
Davids: fetters.  These are the things that "downbind" the individual
to renewed birth, and it is the elimination of sets of these that
define the stages in progress in the Pali system.

The first three (sakkaaya-di.t.thi, vicikicchaa,
siilabbata-paraamaaso) when broken are the mark of stream-entry.
Walshe has: personality-belief, doubt, attachment to rite and ritual;
Rhys Davids: false opinion cerning individuality, doubt, inverted
(judgment) as to rule and ritual, and notes: See Expositor i, 65. B.'s
note on the first runs: belief in the actual existence of a kaya
consisting in body and mind-- i..e., of a soul (atta) in either of them.

PED on sakkaya-ditthi: theory of soul, heresy of individuality,
speculation as to the eternity or otherwise of one's own individuality.

Being fettered to or yoked to one view of the self (sa=one >san=own;
kaya=body) (and by extension of "the world") along with the holding
that any other way of viewing the self is incorrect.

Vicikiccha, doubt, vacilation; but specifically in the Pali,
concerning kamma and the ability to escape kamma
Where the translation for silabbataparamaso is usually given as belief
in rites and rituals, I think this goes much further than that. Sila
is ethical culture; silabbata ig good works and ceremonial observances
(so much richer than either rites or rituals); (paramasa is being
attached to, in the sense of being under the influence of). It is
holding on to the belief that these things, which can be good things
in isolation, accomplish the liberation of the individual form
samsara. They do not; they make good kamma or they are useless.

***rd: 3.19See Expositor i, 65. B.'s note on the first runs: belief in
the actual existence of a kaaya consisting in body and mind--i.e., of
a soul (attaa) in either of them.

CSCD

Tayo aasavaa - kaamaasavo, bhavaasavo, avijjaasavo.

Walshe

DN 33.1.10(20) 'Three corruptions: of sense-desire, of becoming, of
ignorance.

Olds

[3.20]  Three No-goods (asavas, corruptions, intoxicants, effluents):
No-good pleasures, no-good living, no-good blindness

RD's

[3.20] Three intoxicants, to wit, the poisons of sensuality, future
life and ignorance.

**olds: [3.20] (aaavaa) See: Glossology: Asava (incomplete)

***rd: 3.20'AAsava, in the sense of surrounding, or of flowing up to
... e.g., from the eye (or sight) a flowing, percolating, rolling on
into the object ... Abhidhamma, adding di.t.thi (erroneous opinion),
gives four.' Comy. Cf. Dhs., §§ 1096-1100, and above, p. 175, n.1

CSCD

Tayo bhavaa - kaamabhavo, ruupabhavo, aruupabhavo.

Walshe

DN 33.1.10(21) 'Three kinds of becoming: [in the World] of
Sense-Desires, of Form, in the Formless World.

Olds

[ 3.21 ]  Three livings (bhavaa): pleasure-living, material-living,
immaterial-living

RD's

[3.21] Three [planes of] rebirths, to wit, the universe of
sense-desire, that of the lower and that of the higher worlds.

CSCD
<<Tisso esanaa - kaamesanaa, bhavesanaa, brahmacariyesanaa.

Walshe

DN 33.1.10(22) 'Three quests: for sense-desires, for becoming, for the
holy life.

Olds

[3.22]  Three wishes: for pleasure, for life, for the full glory of
the holy life.

RD's

[ 3.22 ] Three quests:--that of sensuous enjoyment, that of life
renewed, that of [problems connected with] the religious life.

**olds: [3.22] (esanaa) Walshe and Rhys Davids have: quests, PED:
[from esati, to seek, search, strive for, indicating that this may
have come from a confusion of the sounds from icchati, wish, but in
the sense of incantation] desire, longing, wish.

***rd: 3.22Brahmacariyesanaa--i.e., eschatological problems,
concerning the soul and its beginning, nature, and ending
(antagaahikaa di.t.thi). See Vibh., p.366.

CSCD

Tisso vidhaa - seyyohamasmiiti vidhaa, sadisohamasmiiti vidhaa,
hiinohamasmiiti vidhaa.

Walshe

DN 33.1.10(23) 'Three forms of conceit: "I am better than…", "I am
equal to…", "I am worse than…".

Olds

[3.23]  Three evaluations the evaluation that "I am better than," the
evaluation that "I am equal to," the evaluation that "I am less than."

RD's

[ 3.23 ] Three forms [of conceit], to wit(1),'I am better than...,'
(2) 'I am equal to ...,' (3) 'I am worse than...'

**olds: [3.23] (vidhaa) PED: 1. mode, manner, sort, kind; proportion,
form variety; 2. (ethically) in special sense: a distinctive feature
(of a person as different from others), a "mode" of pride or delusion,
a "form" of conceit  VI=di (split) dha=that; division, category. I
don't see any justification in the simple word for the leap to
"conceit" or "pride"; these may be divisions or types of pride or
conceit, but that is an opinion about the nature of the set, not the
meaning of vidha. seyyo, better; sadiso, similar, like, equal; hiino,
inferior, less, worse.

***rd: 3.23See Vibh. 367; S. I, 12 (2); III, 48. The first form, says
B., besets kings and recluses; the second, the king's officials; the
third form is characteristic of servants (?).

Sincerely,

Scott, connie, Nina. 


#92041 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:50 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Friendliness!  upasaka_howard 
  Dear Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) -

In a message dated 10/28/2008 12:53:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bhikkhu0@... writes:



How to Practise Universal Friendliness:
<....>
Infinite Friendliness!
===================================
     Sir, I'm curious as to the source of this, thinking  that it may not have
been the Buddha himself, but more of a cultural  outgrowth (in some country)
of the Buddha's teachings on metta. This  piece mentions extending good will
and good fortune to  oneself, domestic guardian deities, parents & teachers &
relatives &  and friends, and then to all living beings. What caught my
attention was  two things: the inclusion of household deities, which strikes me
as
possibly an element of folk belief [I don't recall reading of  them discussed
by the Buddha], and also not explicitly and separately  including spouse and
children [I wonder whether that is due to viewing them as  property - not so
very "nice" by today's standards, but still an  unfortunate fact in many
cultures.]

With metta,
Howard


/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)


#92042 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:16 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  buddhatrue 
  Hi Phil,

Wow, you are so impressive to me lately!  Like gangbusters you go
rolling along.  I very much appreciate this post and the series you
are about to undertake!  I will read with much interest.  Just a few
comments to follow:

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...>
wrote:
>
>
>   Hi James and all
>
> > I think the Tibetans really know something in that they put so
much
> > emphasis on Mindfulness of Death in their Buddhist practice.
>
>   I don't know much about Tibetan Buddhism so I will assume you're
> right, but let's not underappreciate the emphasis the Buddha lays
on
> the above in the Pali canon.

James: Well, of course the Buddha places much emphasis on
Mindfulness of Death.  When I state Tibetan Buddhism, it is of
course what the Buddha taught.  Different sects and schools just
have different areas of focus.  Tibetans place a great deal of
emphasis on Mindfulness of Death- and what the Buddha placed the
most emphasis on depended on his audience at that moment.

  For example, I have an AN anthology where
> there are 5 or maybe 6 suttas related specifically to the topic,
along
> with probably a dozen others (guessing roughly) in which there is
> concern about destinations in the next life.
>
>   Let me post some of them, starting today with one that is not on
> Access to Insight and is therefore probably underappreciated. It's
one
> entitled "The Divine Messengers" by BB, AN 3:35.

James: Wow, this is going to be an awesome series!  Thank you,
sincerely!

>
>   A man who has done bad deeds dies and finds himself in front of
Yama,
> the Lord of Death in Hell. One of the warders of Hell says to
> Yama "this man, your majesty, had no respect for father and
mother, nor
> for ascetics and brahmins, nor did he honour the elders of the
family.
> May your majest inflict due punishment on him!" Yama questions the
> man:"Didn't you ever see, my good man, the first divine messenger
> appearing among humankind?" And the man says no he didn't. "But,"
> continues Yama, "didn't you ever see a woman or a man, aged
eighty,
> nienty or a hundred years, frail, bent likea roof bracket,
crooked,
> leaning on a stick, shakily going along, ailing, youth and vigour
gone,
> with broken teeth, with grey and scanty hair or none, wrinkled,
with
> blotched limbs?" The man replies "yes, Lord, I have seen this."
>   Then King Yama says to him: "My good man, didn't it ever occur
to
> you, an intelligent and mature person,'I too am subject to old age
and
> cannot escape it.Let me now do noble deeds by body, speech and
mind?"
>   "No Lord," admits the man, by now wetting his pants, "I could
not do
> it, I was negligent."
>   King Yama sighs and rubs his eyes, tired of this business, no
doubt,
> of constantly having to punish humans who have screwed up their
rare
> human birth."Through negligence, my good man, you have failed to do
> noble deeds by body, speech and mind. Well, you will be treated as
> begits your negligence. That evil action of yours was not done by
> mother or father, brothers, sisters, friends or companions, norby
> relatives, devas, ascetics, or brahmins. But you alone have done
that
> evil deed, and you will have to experience the fruit."
>
>   And then the Lord of Death asks the man whether he saw the
second and
> third messengers (a seriously ill woman or man lying in his own
filth,
> unable to lift himself out of it, and a woman or man one, two or
three
> days dead) and on hearing that the man did see them but did not
wisely
> resolve to do noble deeds by body, speech and mind, Yama repeats
the
> above Very Bad News. So the man is cast into Hell.

James: This is a very telling sutta.  I like the message.  (As a
side note: the translation is almost funny in some places, as
in "wetting his pants" and "screwed up"...very interesting.  Phil,
what do you think of that?)

>
>   Now some people who don't want Buddhism to be a religion will
object
> to the above, but it was the way the Buddha taught, and it cannot
be
> changed.

James: Yes, like it or not, the Buddha warned about a Hell
destination.  Of course, this hell is not like the Judio/Christian
version of Hell- but it is a reality, not a fantasy.

  People are quite right to point out that reflection on
> momentary death that is the rising and falling away again of
cittas is
> also taught in Buddhism, but as far as I know (my research in this
> series will answer that question) it was taught only in the
> commentaries. It is fair and good to reflect in those terms, but
it is
> not the primary means nor anywhere near the primary means by which
the
> Buddha taught mindfulness of death.

James: Bravo!  Quite right!  Momentary death is only emphasized in
the Path of Purification, not by the Buddha.  Now, reflection on
that type of death does have its purpose, but that isn't what the
Buddha intended by Mindfulness of Death.  He meant to reflect on the
death of a sentinet being, and most specifically to reflect on your
own death.

Since Nina and Han are the most senior members of this group (I
think) perhaps they can join this thread and post about how they
reflect on death.  Since death is more certain for them than for the
younger members (although it is certain for all of us).  Do they
feel that Death is a taboo subject?  Are they comfortable when
others speak of death?  Have they considered their own deaths?  Etc.

I am also reminded of a book I read a few months ago "Tuesdays with
Morrie".  Although that book didn't strike me a profoundly Buddhist.

>
>   I wonder if these "divine messengers" are devas who take human
form
> to teach us?

James: I think they are.  If you read the biography of Ajahn Lee you
can read about some specific instances of devas taking human form to
assist in spiritual pursuits.

>
>   The other day I had an interesting experience. I was walking
along a
> street when lust locked on to a sexy woman up in front of
me. "Mmm", I
> said, I actually said it, "the Buddha can't beat that!"

James: Hmmm...looks like Mara is getting a little panicked in your
case. :-)

  And just then
> to my right I saw an incredibly decrepit old woman who was moving
along
> by a walker, but moving only one step every 30 seconds or so
towards a
> supermarket. She snapped me out of my lustful delight in ripe
young
> flesh and brough me back to the reality of birth, illness, old age
and
> death.

James: Excellent!

  She was a messenger in the sense of the sutta above. I see these
> messengers and reflect in the light of them and this reflection
> conditions some abstinence from wrong deeds so I can feel much,
much
> more confident that I could before that I am preparing wisely for
> death, which could come at any moment. (As the next sutta in this
> series tells us.)

James: Yes, yes, yes...I do feel that this moment was a significant
moment for you.  Carl Jung wrote about moments such as these and he
called them "synchronicity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity  I call them kamma.  It
is up to us to pay attention or to just ignore them- and then end up
in Hell!


>
>   metta,
>
>   phil
>
>  p.s I saw Joe Black years ago, when Naomi was going through a
Brad
> Pitt stage. I'll have to see it again on your recommendation. At
the
> time it didn't make a huge impression on me, but that was before I
came
> across the Dhamma.
>

James: Yeah, I would recommend that you see it again.  In light of
the Dhamma, the movie really says a lot (and in a subtle way which I
appreciate).

Metta,
James 



#92043 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:05 am 
Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Nina -

In a message dated 10/28/2008 5:52:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
vangorko@... writes:

Hi  Howard,
Op 27-okt-2008, om 23:04 heeft upasaka@... het volgende  geschreven:

> <Leaving it all to sati really helps to understand  what sati is. Not
> <trying to interefere, this is very important. It  all depends on sati
> <what reality is its object.
>  -------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Nina  you are not at that point. That point needs to be reached.
> Pretending  that one is at that point is counterproductive.
-------
N: No matter  what level of understanding there is, this is a basic
principle that  should be known and understood right from the
beginning. Otherwise  one takes for sati what is not. Thus, I am also
thinking of  satipatthaana that is still tender, as Scott expresses it.
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     You ignore my point about the need for early,  basic, intentional
cultivation in order to REACH the stage of ongoing and  effective sati you speak
of.
-------------------------------------------------


This  morning I heard Kh Sujin speak about anattaa: <Do we understand
anattaa? Or do we only know it on the level of thinking? At this
moment sati and pa~n~naa are anattaa.>
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Yes, so? What has this to do with my point?
-----------------------------------------------


People may talk about anatta but only know the 'story' of anattaa.  it
means that nobody owns realities and we have to apply it  now.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     We have to apply WHAT now? The story? We  cannot "apply" it. We need to
cultivate the mind to the point that anatta starts  to be seen as a reality and
not just a story. You can read about anatta and  think about it forever,
Nina, and never come to realize it.
-------------------------------------------------


As  you know we discussed before about three levels: understanding the
truth, sacca ~naa.na. Direct awareness and understanding of it,  kicca
~naa.na. The direct realisation of the truth, kata ~naa.na. As  to the
first level, this is already firm understanding that  dhammas
appearing now are non-self. Thus, sati cannot be owned,  regulated,
directed to this or that object.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The mind can be cultivated so that sati comes  to be in effect
increasingly frequently and with increasing power. Without  practice, however,
no such
cultivation occurs. Reading & thinking will not  do it. For that matter, your
statement "sati cannot be owned,  regulated, directed to this or that object"
is true but  irrelevant. Sati can be supported. If by your statement you mean
that there  is nothing we can do to cultivate sati, then I suggest you
immediately stop your  studies and contemplations. You contradict yourself,
Nina. On
the one hand you  say that study and wise considering of the Tipitaka is the
one and only thing  that works, and on the other hand that there is nothing that
works.
-------------------------------------------------


It  means: 'let' sati arise, and 'let' it take any object, no matter
kusala or akusala, pleasant or unpleasant. If that is so, it can
arise unexpectedly, unplanned. Then one can understand that it is
truly anatta.

As to mindfulness of breathing, this has been  discussed so often
here. Nowhere have I read that everybody has to  be engaged with this
subject.
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Of course nobody HAS to be engaged with this. Who  says otherwise?
-------------------------------------------------

People  had already developed this subject before the
Buddha's  time.
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     No doubt. They were also well acquainted with  suffering, and change, and
loss. The Buddha's teaching on anapanasati goes well  beyond attending to the
breath and is not a scheme for training in absorptive  meditation. It is a
means to implement the jhanas taught by the Buddha and the  four foundations of
mindfulness - to pacify and clarify the mind, cultivate  wisdom, and lead to
awakening. The Buddha, in teaching this and related suttas,  was not rehashing
old stuff.
-------------------------------------------------



As Jon said long ago:
<the Anapanasati Sutta is a  teaching on attaining to the superior
kind of
insight known as  'insight both ways', based on jhana, in this case jhana
with breath as  object.  As such, is directed at those who have already
attained jhana  with breath as object or who are potentially capable of
doing so.  For  such individuals, breath is already a naturally arising
object in their  daily life, a daily life that is far different from
yours
and  mine. >And also:
<As I have indicated, the sutta was given for the  benefit
of those (monks) who are already highly adept at attending to the  breath
(actually, its nimitta) as an object of samatha, and for those
persons the
sutta is indeed about the discernment of an 'everyday  object'.>

I would add:the bhikkhus the sutta was addressed to were  highly
adept, they were arahats  or they had accumulations to  attain
arahatship. We read even after the first tetrad in the  Visuddhimagga:
<After he has thus reached the four noble paths in due  succession and
has become established in the fruition of arahatship,  he at last
attains to the nineteen kinds of “Reviewing Knowledge�,  and he
becomes fit to receive the highest gifts from the world with  its
deities.>
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     What we read is that this was a very good  group of bhikkhus, but
bhikkhus of widely varying levels, and even including a  number of new bhikkhus.
Specifically, there is the following, the last three  groups mentioned being
worldings engaged in meditation on the four foundations  of mindfulness etc, on
meditation for the cultivation of the divine abidings  etc, and on anapanasati
meditation:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"In this community of monks there are monks who are arahants, whose mental
effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the
  burden, attained the true goal, laid to waste the fetter of becoming, and
who  are released through right gnosis: such are the monks in this community of
monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the wasting away of the
  five lower fetters, are due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be
totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world: such are the
monks in this community of monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the wasting away of
[the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, &
delusion, are once-returners, who — on returning only once more to this world
—
will make an ending to stress: such are the monks in this community of
monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the wasting away of
[the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined
for states of woe, headed for self-awakening: such are the monks in this
community of monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the
development of the four frames of reference... the four right exertions... the 
four
bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven
factors for awakening... the noble eightfold path: such are the monks in this
community of monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the
development of good will... compassion... appreciation... equanimity... [the
perception of the] foulness [of the body]... the perception of inconstancy: such
are the monks in this community of monks.
"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to mindfulness
  of in-&-out breathing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Nina.
=============================
With metta,
Howard

P. S. Anapanasati is mentioned by Buddhaghosa as a type of meditation
suitable for all types of persons. Note that those types include a wide variety 
of
afflictions, so it does not only pertain to ariyans. It is also the most
widely practiced form of meditation in the world. And, as taught by the Buddha,
it does NOT pertain only to the breath.
     The difficulty in anapanasati is also its strength:  As mindfulness with
breathing proceeds and the mind is calmed, the breath  becomes more subtle and
difficult to observe - the disadvantage. But,  as the breath becomes more
subtle, in order to still observe it,  increased attention, effort and energy
must be put forth, and this leads onward  to greater and greater calm and
clarity
together - the advantage. Note also,  that one does NOT *concentrate* on the
breath, but only uses that as a  centerpiece. Anapanasat as taught by the
Buddha is an in-tandem meditation that  cultivates vipassana every bit as much
as
samatha. This can be seen in what I  copy below as signature quote for this
post.


/"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so  as to
be of great fruit, of great benefit?
"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the  wilderness, to the shade
of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding  his legs crosswise,
holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.  Always mindful, he
breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or  breathing
out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or  breathing in short,
he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out  short, he discerns,
'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I  will breathe in
sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will  breathe out sensitive
to
the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will  breathe in calming bodily
fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out  calming bodily
fabrication.'
"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He  trains
himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He trains  himself, 'I
will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains himself, 'I will  breathe
out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains himself, 'I will  breathe in
sensitive to mental fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe  out
sensitive to
mental fabrication.' [8] He trains himself, 'I will  breathe in calming
mental fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out  calming mental
fabrication.'
"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He  trains
himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He  trains himself,
'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I  will breathe
out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains himself, 'I will  breathe in
steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out steadying  the
mind.' [12]
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the  mind.' He trains
himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.'
"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.'  He
trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He  trains
himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally,  fading].' He
trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.'  [15] He trains
himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He  trains himself, 'I will
breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He  trains himself, 'I will breathe in
focusing on relinquishment.' He trains  himself, 'I will breathe out focusing
on relinquishment.'
"This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued  so as
to be of great fruit, of great  benefit./



#92044 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:07 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote .. "My Self"  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 10/28/2008 6:26:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jonabbott@... writes:

There is  a difference, and it's an important one.  As the passage
quoted  explains, the academic's interest lies in the words or ideas
being  written/read about, and he has no appreciation that what is
being read  relates to the dhammas of the present moment.
=============================
     Oh, yes? I didn't know that.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is  how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream,  a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a  dream/

(From the Diamond  Sutra)


#92045 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:30 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  nilovg 
  Dear Alex,
Op 27-okt-2008, om 23:40 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven:

> What if a person feels depressed or in "bad mood" due and caused by
> hormonal imbalances? If person has a chemical imbalance in their head,
> is the resultant feeling merely due to mental (not bodily) factors?
>
> No. The mental feelings are in most (if not all cases) for humans, are
> due to Material (rupa) causes. Not mental.
------
N: Certainly rupic influences play a part, but need not be
overpowering. If pa~n~naa is strong enough phenomena can be seen as
only nama and only rupa. If there is not so much clinging to oneself,
to the way one feels, depressions can be cured, and truly, Dhamma is
the best medicin in the world.
Nina.



#92046 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:22 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  truth_aerator 
  Dear Nina,

>Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Alex,
> Op 27-okt-2008, om 23:40 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven:
>
> > What if a person feels depressed or in "bad mood" due and caused
>by
> > hormonal imbalances? If person has a chemical imbalance in their
>head,
> > is the resultant feeling merely due to mental (not bodily)
>factors?
> >
> > No. The mental feelings are in most (if not all cases) for
>humans, are
> > due to Material (rupa) causes. Not mental.
> ------
> N: Certainly rupic influences play a part,

Could you please say, how much?

>but need not be  overpowering. If pa~n~naa is strong enough
>phenomena can be seen as  only nama and only rupa. If there is not
>so much clinging to oneself, to the way one feels, depressions can
>be cured, and truly, Dhamma is  the best medicin in the world.
> Nina.


Are you saying that if a person has lets say sloth&torpor due to
viral or bacterial infection (NOT mental laziness), one can overpower
it? Can you give any tips? Thank you,


Best wishes, 


#92047 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:06 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Alex (and Nina) -

In a message dated 10/28/2008 4:23:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
truth_aerator@... writes:

Are you  saying that if a person has lets say sloth&torpor due to
viral or  bacterial infection (NOT mental laziness), one can overpower
it? Can you  give any tips? Thank you,
==========================
     Position-defending and theorizing aside, always  just an annoyance anyway
(LOL!), I can give the following advice derived from my  personal experience:
When ill and exhausted, as for example I have been recently  due to asthmatic
bronchitis and to the antibiotic taken for it (which also  promotes
sleepiness), it is still possible to be mindful of exactly the  tiredness,
discomfort,
unhappiness, and all else that is arising, and to see its  ever-changing and
conditioned nature. This is especially so if one  has engaged in a regular
mindfulness practice during prior periods of  wellness, vigor, and ease. There's
always something to be "seen,"  Alex.

With metta,
Howard



#92048 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:35 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear James, Phil, Nina and others,

> James: Since Nina and Han are the most senior members of this group (I think)
perhaps they can join this thread and post about how they reflect on death.
Since death is more certain for them than for the younger members (although it
is certain for all of us). Do they feel that Death is a taboo subject? Are they
comfortable when others speak of death? Have they considered their own deaths?
Etc.

Han: I do not feel that death is a taboo subject. I am comfortable when others
speak of death. Yes, I am considering my own death all the time.

I am prepared for death!
There are two aspects of the preparation for death, namely, the preparation of
my family for my death, and the preparation of myself for my own death.

Previously, my family would not like to hear when I spoke about my death. For
them I am like a big tree for the birds to rest. If the tree is gone, the birds
will loose their place to rest. When I die, they felt that they would be
helpless. Gradually, I spoke the inevitability of death for everybody, and they
have now accepted my forthcoming death.

There are many things they must do when I am gone, which I am doing for them
right now. They must know how to get the money from my bank accounts; they must
know what is in the deposit box in the bank and how to get them; they must know
how to extend their Burmese passports and how to extend their stay in Thailand,
and so on. My wife must know how to get the WHO pension when I am gone and how
to extend her health isurance with WHO. I have enquired with the Joint Staff
Pension Fund, New York, how much my wife would get when I die. So she knows
exactly how much she would get. I have already filled the forms for her pension
to be sent to New York when I die; my wife just has to sign it, put the date and
send it to New York. These are just examples. I have instructed my family many
other things in minute details.

I do not want them to be crying at my bed-side when I die. I want them to be
brave. I want them to be brave like the family in the background story to
Dhammapada Verse 212. When the son of a Brahmin (Bodhisatta) died of snake bite,
the father, the mother, the wife, and the maid did not cry. As it was very
strange the Sakka came down to earth disguised as a man and asked them why they
did not cry. The answers given by them were very remarkable. I do not have the
English translation. Perhaps, Nina can help me in this regard with the English
translation.

As regards the preparation of myself for my own death I will write some time
later. Now-a-days, I do not feel very well. I am taking Harnal (tamsulosin HCL)
for my enlarged prostate, and it makes me dizzy all the time and causes muscle
weakness. [The Urologist said it could not be due to Harnal. It might be
something else.] But I did not feel these last year. It all happened when I
started on Harnal in February this year. When I walk half the distance that I
used to walk before, my leg muscles get tired. Even my jaw muscles get tired
when I chew the food. I cannot stop the medicine, and I cannot do anything to
prevent this, and I have to live with it. This acceptance of old age and disease
itself is the preparation for death.

I will write some more later.

Han 


#92049 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:24 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi James

> James: This is a very telling sutta.  I like the message.  (As a
> side note: the translation is almost funny in some places, as
> in "wetting his pants" and "screwed up"...very interesting.  Phil,
> what do you think of that?)

  Oh James, sorry, I was rolling along like gangbusters, as you said,
but I was half paraphrasing. The wetting his pants was mine! Sorry
about that. The direct speech(parantheses) I put are all exact
though. I think this pants wetting and King Yama the Lord of Death
rubbing his eyes tiredly halfway through another hard day at work
and the screwing up are the only parts that I got silly with.

  Thanks. Back to you on this tomorrow.

   metta,

  phil 


#92050 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:27 pm 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6. - To Phil  philofillet 
  Hi again Jon, Scott and all

> I objected to
> that because there is a clear (to me) imperative on trying to have
> the insight that knows nama (seeing) from rupa (visible object.) I
> can't personally understand what else "study seeing" could mean.

  I thougt about this afterwards and remembered my discussion with
Scott. The "study seeing" could also deal with the moment of awareness
of when thinking proliferates from a moment of seeing, so nama and more
nama and more and more and more...nice how a Dhamma from a couple of
weeks ago echoed and helped me to refine my understanding a wee bit for
a moment or two...

  metta,

  phil 


#92051 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:28 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi Nina

  Thank you Nina. I also appreciate the way you encourage me to consider
the momentary death aspect, the falling away of cittas at every moment.

  metta,

  phil

> very good post. I like it very much. And the sutta is really
> Lodewijk's favorite. He read it aloud once at the Foundation for Kh.
> Sujin. We had a lovely session about it.
> I had to laugh at your description of discussions about meditation
> with Tep and the reaction at dsg you predicted. It is not all that
> bad ;-))
> Nina.
> 


#92052 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:48 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  buddhatrue 
  Hi Han,

Thank you very sincerely for offering your thoughts and plans on
death.  It does indeed sound like you are very prepared and you
serve as an inspiration to all of us.  So sorry to hear about your
tiredness due to the medication.  Please don't push yourself too
hard and write more only when you can.

Metta,
James

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun <hantun1@...> wrote:

> Han: I do not feel that death is a taboo subject. I am comfortable
when others speak of death. Yes, I am considering my own death all
the time.
>
> I am prepared for death!
> There are two aspects of the preparation for death, namely, the
preparation of my family for my death, and the preparation of myself
for my own death.<snip> 


#92053 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:54 pm 
Subject: Re: Survey Quote  truth_aerator 
  Hi Howard, Nina and all,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>
> Hi, Alex (and Nina) -
> it is still possible to be mindful of exactly the  tiredness,
>discomfort, unhappiness, and all else that is arising, and to see
>its ever-changing and conditioned nature. This is especially so if
>one  has engaged in a regular mindfulness practice during prior
>periods of  wellness, vigor, and ease. There's
> always something to be "seen,"  Alex.
>
> With metta,
> Howard

This wasn't what I meant. Of course one can be mindful of virus-
induced sleepiness/drowsiness. The real question is: can one make
that sleepiness go away through such practice? If the sleepiness was
100% caused by mental causes, then yes. But what if it is mostly if
not 100% organic (rupa) based?


Best wishes, 


#92054 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:52 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Alex -

In a message dated 10/28/2008 8:55:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
truth_aerator@... writes:

This  wasn't what I meant. Of course one can be mindful of virus-
induced  sleepiness/drowsiness. The real question is: can one make
that sleepiness  go away through such practice? If the sleepiness was
100% caused by mental  causes, then yes. But what if it is mostly if
not 100% organic (rupa)  based?
===================================
     Well, it's not possible for me! ;-)) I imagine it  might be possible for
ariyans, or at least high ariyans.

With metta,
Howard



#92055 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:11 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear Alex, Howard, (and Nina),

Regarding:

N: "Certainly rupic influences play a part..."

A: "Could you please say, how much?  Are you saying that if a person
has lets say sloth & torpor due to viral or bacterial infection (NOT
mental laziness), one can overpower it?...The real question is: can
one make that sleepiness go away through such practice? If the
sleepiness was 100% caused by mental causes, then yes. But what if it
is mostly if not 100% organic (rupa) based?"

Scott:  This is resolved by remembering that naama is different from
ruupa.  And by remembering that sloth and torpor are naama - they are
immaterial in nature.  Naama is the reality that experiences; ruupa is
the reality that does not experience anything.

Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.288):

"What is stolidity [sloth] (thiina.m)?  That which is indisposition,
unwieldiness of mind,; adhering and coherence; clinging, cleaving to,
stickiness; stolidity, that is, a stiffening, a rigidity of the mind -
this is called stolidity."

"What is torpor (middha.m)?  That which is indisposition and
unwieldiness of sense, a shrouding, enveloping, barricading within,
torpor that is sleep, drowsiness; sleep, slumbering, somnolence - this
is called torpor."

Atthasaalinii (p. 485):

"...'Shrouding means it covers up the mental aggregate as the cloud
covers the sky.  'Enveloping' is covering all round.  'Barricading
within' is it obstructs within...'Torpor' means it oppresses, i.e., it
injures by means of unwieldiness.  'Sleep' is that whereby we go to
sleep.  'Drowsiness' makes blinking of the eyelashes, etc.
'Slumbering, somnolence' - these two terms signify the mode and state.
  And the reason of the repetition of that term 'sleep' preceding them
has been explained.  'This is called the Hindrence of sloth and
torpor, which generally rises before or after the sleep of
probationers and average men, is completely cut off by the Path of
Arahatship.  But there is a lapse into the [subconscious]
life-continuum (in fatigue) owing to weakness of the sentient body in
Arahants.  When this arises unmixed [with thought process], they
sleep.  This rest is called their slumber..."

Scott: Regarding this question of immaterial vs material causation, it
is said, of the effect of alcoholic drink (Atthasaalinii pp. 487-488):

"...Because when spirituous drink goes to the stomach the mind is
corrupted, wisdom is weakened, therefore like drink torpor also may
corrupt the mind and weaken wisdom.  But spirituous drink is not the
corruption itself from merely signifying the cause.  For were it so
then it would be indicated in such expositions of corruption as, 'By
removing Hindrances which corrupt the mind'; or 'Bhikkhus, likewise
there are these five corruptors of mind by which the corrupted mind is
not plastic, not wieldy, not brilliant, not altogether radiant, not
concentrated on the destruction of the Intoxicants.  Which are the
five?  Sensual desire is the corruptor of mind'; or 'Bhikkhus, which
is the corruption of mind?  Covetousness, lawless greed, is the
corruption of mind.'  And because when liquor is drunk, corruptions
arise, corrupting the mind and weakening wisdom, therefore from being
the cause of corruption and signifying such, liquor is said to be so..."

Scott: I think this nicely clarifies things.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92056 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:32 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard, Alex, Scott, All


In a message dated 10/28/2008 9:12:30 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  This is resolved by remembering that naama is different from
ruupa. And by  remembering that sloth and torpor are naama - they are
immaterial in  nature. Naama is the reality that experiences; ruupa is
the reality that  does not experience anything.

Dhammasa"nga.Dhammasa"nga.



........................................................................


TG:  This may be the Abhidhamma view but it isn't mine.  The body  and mind
are an interactive organism and function in unison.  The mind  cannot
experience without the body, the body cannot experience without the  mind.  What
I see
above in this passage is way too extreme.  IMO, the  mind and body are
extensions of each other...they support each other.  The  Buddha said this...


“This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of  the four great
elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of  boiled rice
and
porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed  away, to
dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is  supported by
it
and bound up with it.�
"Consciousness is supported by  the 4GE's and bound up with it."  This
doesn't sound like the blatant  dichotomy of the Dhammasangani remark above. 
Once
again, this is an  example of what happens with strict categorization of
phenomena that cannot, in  reality, be separated into these artificial
"absolutes."

Contact is the coming together  of sense object, sense organ, and
corresponding consciousness.  These three  "together" are responsible for
feeling/experience.  Two out of the three  are rupa.  It is THIS UNIT that
feels.  Not some
"independent  consciousness."
So in my view, the  Dhammasangani does not clarify it, it distorts it.
TG OUT


#92057 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu0@...> 
Date: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:42 pm 
Subject: A Void Frame!  bhikkhu0 
  Friends:

Only Ownerless & Transient Effects of prior Conditions:

The Blessed Buddha once stated:
Sabbe Dhamm� Anatta!
which means:
All states are not self...

This body is neither yours, nor anybody else's...
These feelings are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
These perceptions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
These mental constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
These verbal constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
These bodily constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
This consciousness is neither yours, nor anybody else's.
They are results of old kamma, prior actions, something to be seen as generated
and
shaped by accumulations of past intention, emerging as effects to be sensed
now...
When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises.
When this does not exist, that does not come to be.  When this ceases, that
ceases too:
That is:
The fading away of Ignorance causes Mental Construction to cease.
The fading away of Mental Construction causes Consciousness to cease.
The fading away of Consciousness causes Name-&-Form to cease.
The fading away of Name-&-Form causes The 6 Senses to cease.
The fading away of The 6 Senses causes Contact to cease.
The fading away of Contact causes Feeling to cease.
The fading away of Feeling causes Craving to cease.
The fading away of Craving causes Clinging to cease.
The fading away of Clinging causes Becoming to cease.
The fading away of Becoming causes Birth to cease.
The fading away of Birth causes Ageing, Decay & Death to cease.
The fading away of Ageing, Decay & Death causes Pain to cease...
Such is the ceasing of this entire immense mass of Suffering!!!

A Void Frame!
As this Box is empty of any "Self", "soul" or "Ego"
so is the body and all other phenomena...

Source:
The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya II 65
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html


Who own these? Not their owners! They are - and always was - ownerless!

<....>
Have a nice day!


  Friendship is the Greatest *
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-)
  http://What-Buddha-Said.net <http://what-buddha-said.net/>
... 


#92058 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:02 am 
Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  nilovg 
  Hi Howard,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 15:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> This morning I heard Kh Sujin speak about anattaa: <Do we understand
> anattaa? Or do we only know it on the level of thinking? At this
> moment sati and pa~n~naa are anattaa.>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Yes, so? What has this to do with my point?
-------
N: It has. I think it is basic to see that sati is anatta. And not
just thinking of the story of anatta.
Now I have to be at the texts Scott just posted and this will take me
a while.
You wrote: <When ill and exhausted, as for example I have been
recently due to asthmatic
bronchitis and to the antibiotic taken..>  Sorry to hear this and
hope you will be better soon. But the way you take it is very good,
there is always something to be studied.
Nina.



#92059 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:27 am 
Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

I was running in the woods in Holland and I wanted to forget that
there is ageing. I enjoyed the songs of the birds, the trees and the
meadows. If we are sincere we must admit that we want pleasant things
to last. We wish visible object to last, sound to last, we wish all
pleasant objects to last. We are thinking of a self who is running in
the woods, who is seeing and hearing, but in reality there is no
self. Seeing sees, not a self. Seeing is only one moment of
experience, it experiences visible object and it cannot last, it
falls away immediately. Hearing hears, not a self; thinking thinks,
not a self. There is no person, no self, there are only different
mental phenomena, nåmas, and physical phenomena, rúpas, which are
impermanent. When we are enjoying ourselves, do we want to develop
right understanding in order to know realities as impermanent and not
self? At first it may not appeal to us to know more about nåma and
rúpa and to be mindful of them when they appear. But do we want to go
on living in a dream or do we want to know the truth? When we begin
to see what is real and what is not real we shall know that it is not
a waste of time to develop right undertstanding. It is most
beneficial, it is the only way to cope with birth, old age, sickness
and death, the only way to cope with all our troubles.

Through the development of right understanding we shall know what is
real and what is not real. There are two kinds of truths:

conventional truth (sammutti sacca)

ultimate truth (paramattha sacca)

Conventional truth are people, soul, body, animal, tree or chair, all
the things we have been familiar with throughout our life, all the
things we take for granted. Before we listened to the Dhamma and
studied it we only knew about the conventional truth and we took it
for real. When there is no right understanding one thinks that
conventional truth is the only truth. Through the Dhamma we learn
that the conventional truth is not real in the absolute or ultimate
sense. This does not mean that we should deny the conventional truth
and that we should avoid thinking of concepts. Concepts and ideas are
in our ordinary language expressed by conventional terms and we need
these to make ourselves understood. We cannot help thinking of
concepts, it is conditioned. We all think of concepts but there can
be more understanding of what is real and what is not real.

******

Nina.



#92060 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:31 am 
Subject: Survey Quote  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

One should know that defilements cannot be eradicated through
thinking about the truth. Defilements cannot be eradicated if one
does not know yet the characteristic of nåma, the element which
experiences something. It is nåma which is seeing, hearing, smelling,
tasting, experiencing tangible object or thinking, it is not a self
who has these experiences. When someone has not developed paññå
through awareness of the characteristics of the realities which are
appearing, he does not penetrate the true nature of nåma and rúpa,
and he cannot realize their arising and falling away. Nåma and rúpa
which are arising and falling away are actually the world which
arises and falls away at this moment.
People may reflect on the characteristics of nåma and rúpa and they
may have understanding of them, but they should not erroneously
believe that paññå has already been developed to the degree of
eradicating defilements. If sati does not arise, if there is no
awareness and investigation of the characteristics of realities which
are appearing one at a time, the difference between nåma and rúpa
cannot be realized. The difference between the characteristic of nåma
and the characteristic of rúpa should be realized through the mind-
door as they appear one at a time, so that they are clearly known as
they are. This is realized at the first stage of insight, but so long
as this stage has not been reached, paññå cannot develop further to
the degree of knowing that all conditioned dhammas are merely the
world which is void, void of what one takes for self, for a being or
for a person.

*******
Nina.



#92061 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:07 am 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  philofillet 
  Hi Nina



>At first it may not appeal to us to know more about nåma and
> rúpa and to be mindful of them when they appear. But do we want to
go
> on living in a dream or do we want to know the truth?

   It seems to me that most of us would find it very appealing indeed
to know more about nama and rupa and to know the truth, to be
liberated from living in a dream etc. But do we really know more
about them or are we just creating a new dream that is about knowing
about nama and rupa?

   Prodded mercilessly by Sarah, I listened to the first session of
the recorded talks. It was nice to hear it again, though I won't
make a regular habit of it. (I don't listen to any Dhamma talks
these days, my ipod died and I can't afford to by another, and I
don't want to stay online for long, so listening at the site is not
an option.)

    What of this nimitta? I don't understand how we can be aware of
nama and rupa that we know from the theory rises and falls away a
billion times a second or whatever, but I can accept the idea of
there being a nimitta that remains behind after the realities have
fallen away. Is that what we are aware of? I remember in a talk from
a couple of years ago you were surprised when A.S said it was the
nimitta of the characteristic of the reality rather than the
characteristic of the reality itself that awareness knows, "this is
new!" you exclaimed. Why was that? Did A.S put a new emphasis on
nimitta of reality rather than actual characteristic of reality. If
she did it makes sense to me, it seems the only way there could
possibly be awareness of such a fleeting object. I'm going to skype
with Sarah about this on Saturday, so any thoughts on this would be
appreciated....


   metta,

   phil

   btw nina, skype is so cheap even if the receiver doesn't have it
that I would like to call you some time by my skype, perhaps during
my winter vacation. I'll get your phone number off list. 


#92062 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:08 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  philofillet 
  Hi Nina

   Interesting, thanks. I thought that yoni looked familiar from
somewhere!

   metta,

    phil

> N: Matrix is sometimes rendered as womb. That is in pali: yoni, but
I
> do not have the text.
> Thus, we are born from kamma, kamma produces the
rebirthconsciousness
> and all bhavangacittas during that life, and also seeing and the
> other sense-cognitions arising during that life. 


#92063 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:20 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hello Han and all (p.e to Ajahn Jose)

   Thanks for sharing your reflections on your death, Han. Look
forward to reading more later, if you'd like.

> Previously, my family would not like to hear when I spoke about my
death. For them I am like a big tree for the birds to rest. If the
tree is gone, the birds will loose their place to rest. When I die,
they felt that they would be helpless. Gradually, I spoke the
inevitability of death for everybody, and they have now accepted my
forthcoming death.

   What a beautiful paragraph, thank you.

   I remember hearing that popular monk Ajahn Brahm... talking about
visiting a Buddhist friend who had learned she only had a few months
to live, or weeks, I forget. A nurse who was worried because the
woman was too cheerful in her outlook took Ajahn B aside when he
visited and told him "your friend is in denial" and he said "no she
isn't, she's Buddhist."

   metta,

   phil

  p.s Ajahn Jose, are you out there? How are you doing these days,
Bhante? 


#92064 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:47 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hello again Han

> > Previously, my family would not like to hear when I spoke about
my
> death. For them I am like a big tree for the birds to rest. If the
> tree is gone, the birds will loose their place to rest. When I
die,
> they felt that they would be helpless. Gradually, I spoke the
> inevitability of death for everybody, and they have now accepted
my
> forthcoming death.
>
>   What a beautiful paragraph, thank you.

    I thought afterward that this was a facile thing for me to write.
The paragraph in fact is about the suffering of your loved ones, and
shouldn't be praised for beauty! I am confident that the refuge you
have found in Dhamma will be transmitted to them and they will find
refuge in that big tree of Dhamma if they have not already found it.


   metta,

   phil 


#92065 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:53 am 
Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path  jonoabb 
  Hi Suan

> The present thread `Enter The Abhidhammika!' on this occasion was
> also initiated to find out if Jon's statements advocate outside
> views or not.

Now that we know what the issue is, shall we get on with the task?

Below is my original message.  Please indicate in what respect you
think any of the statements there to be "outside" the Dhamma.

Jon


***********************************
Hi Tep and Alex

> Alex: And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step
> outline of the path as DSG'ers see it?
>
> ..................
>
> T: Plain and simple, if I already were satisfied with her reply,
> would I have kept on asking more questions during these years?
>
> The answer is a "No", of course.

To my understanding - and I think this has been explained at length
and often -
there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the
development
of the path.

So no matter how many times you ask for this, there's never going to
be a
"satisfactory" reply ;-))

The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding of
dhammas,
and this is not something that occurs by virtue of the "doing" of
specific
things.

Jon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91046
*********************************** 


#92066 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:58 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

TG:  "...The body and mind are an interactive organism and function in
unison.  The mind cannot experience without the body, the body cannot
experience without the  mind...IMO, the  mind and body are
extensions of each other...they support each other."

Scott: This is nothing more than ordinary mind-body dualism - a
recycled, 'buddhicised', and elementary view no different than a
simplified modern psychology.  Why?  Because 'mind' and 'body' are
meant here to describe wholes - I don't think, given the view, that
this could refer to the interaction of naama and ruupa *in the
moment*, or to distinct realities.  I wouldn't be surprised if the
view didn't include 'brain' and winds up being purely a
quasi-materialistic view.

TG: "The  Buddha said this..."

Scott: Would you please reference the textual supports you provide for
these views?

TG: "Contact is the coming together of sense object, sense organ, and
corresponding consciousness.  These three 'together' are responsible
for feeling/experience.  Two out of the three are rupa.  It is THIS
UNIT that feels.  Not some 'independent  consciousness.'..."

Scott: Again, this might as well be Psychology 101.  Why? Because it
refers to a unit, which includes materiality, and suggests that the
whole unit 'feels'.  The above suggests that ruupa - as included in a
*conceptual* unit - is capable of consciousness based on its inclusion
in this conceptual entity, which, of course, is untenable.  This is a
good example of how the difference between naama and ruupa is not
understood.

MN 9.54:

"...Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention - these are
called mentality.  The four great elements - these are called
materiality..."

"...Vedanaa, sa~n~naa, cetanaa, phasso, manasikaaro  â€" ida.m
vuccataavuso, naama.m; cattaari ca mahaabhuutaani, catunna~nca
mahaabhuutaana.m upaadaayaruupa.m â€" ida.m vuccataavuso, rÅ«pa.m..."

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92067 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:59 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear Phil (James),

> > Han: Previously, my family would not like to hear when I spoke about my
death. For them I am like a big tree for the birds to rest. If the tree is gone,
the birds will loose their place to rest. When I die, inevitability of death for
everybody, and they have now accepted my forthcoming death.

> Phil: What a beautiful paragraph, thank you.

> Phil: I thought afterward that this was a facile thing for me to write. The
paragraph in fact is about the suffering of your loved ones, and shouldn't be
praised for beauty! I am confident that the refuge you have found in Dhamma will
be transmitted to them and they will find refuge in that big tree of Dhamma if
they have not already found it.

--------------------

Han: Dear Phil, I am writing this because James asked me and Nina whether we
feel that Death is a taboo subject; whether we are comfortable when others speak
of death; and whether we have considered our own deaths and so on.

When you wrote what I have written is beautiful, I thank you.
When you wrote it should not be praised for beauty, I still thank you for your
interest.
For my part, I will not change my stance and my line of action.

Respectfully,
Han 


#92068 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:21 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Hi again Phil (James),

At first I thought you were telling me that I was insensitive to the sufferings
of my loved ones. When I read you note again, I think I know your true cetanaa
towards our family.

I withdraw my last post.

Respectfully,
Han 


#92069 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:24 am 
Subject: A get-together with Jessica  sarahprocter... 
  Dear Jessica, Jon, James, Nina & all,

This afternoon I met Jessica for the first time. She joined and posted on DSG
recently and asked some good questions, as Nina and others will recall.

We had afternoon tea together in the Shangrila hotel lobby and discussed the
Dhamma for all our time together. Just like my chat with Cindy the other day,
this chat with Jessica was also a delightful occasion.

Jessica is Canadian Chinese, living in Hong Kong and often attending retreats in
Myanmar. In Hong Kong she has association with many Buddhist groups and is very
interested in co-ordinating, assisting, sharing her knowledge and practice where
she can. (Pls correct any errors in what I write, Jessica!). We got on very well
and have a lot in common in terms of our keen interest in the Dhamma,
co-ordinating/organising tendencies and background roots in different countries,
but living in Hong Kong. We've also both given up our jobs partly to have a
little more time for our various Dhamma activities.

I had taken copies of Sujin's 'Survey' and Nina's 'ADL' to give Jessica. This
triggerd off a discussion about the Abhidhamma and how it can be off-putting to
people if they think they have to learn lists and numbers and names. Was the
Abhidhamma just for the well-educated or intellectual types? Jessica had
listened to recordings of some teachers that seemed to suggest this. We talked
about how the value of the Abhidhamma has to, in fact, be relevant to the
understanding of dhammas at this moment. It's not about learning lists and
names, but understanding how there is one world at a time now - the world of
seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or thinking.

We discussed quite a bit on dhammas as anatta and pretty well agreed on all the
main points about conditioned dhammas, no-control, the importance of
understanding and so on. We discussed awareness versus understanding and there
were further discussions on intention and the meaning of right effort, similar
to ones we often have here. Jessica wondered more about what my practice was and
we discussed whether wholesome states could be determined or followed (Jessica
will have to remind me of the words we used). At one point I gave the example of
metta and friendliness when we help someone in trouble and how there isn't any
special intending or attempt to have right effort in advance. Simply, when
wholesome states such as metta arise, the intention and effort are right at such
times. Similarly when there is understanding of seeing or visible object now,
right effort accompanies it. (This reminded me of a discussion Jon had with Tep
recently).

Jessica was interested to hear more about A.Sujin and the teaching about
Abhidhamma and practice being of accord and not separate. She and other friends
of hers have studied some Abhidhamma with Ven Visuddhicara from Malaysia when
he's visited Hong Kong and so they're already familiar with the Pali terms. One
of these good friends of hers happens to be Eric, the taxi-driver whom we met on
a long drive to Big Wave Bay once! James may remember, because Jon wrote about
the very unusual incident and James replied to it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/61881
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/61957

Next month, Jessica may bring him and other friends to have a further
'Abhidhamma now' discussion, so Eric may have another opportunity, James!!
(Perhaps you can pop over to make sure there's plenty of controversy:-))

What else? We discussed quite a bit about helping others and 'the problem'
coming back to our own attachments and expectations. Everyone has different
accumulations, so it depends on these how anyone may respond to our 'sharings'.
I was thinking about the 3 ways of studying the Dhamma - for oneself, for others
or for the sake of the Dhamma itself. The latter refers to studying just for the
sake of understanding and of course this depends on a careful consideration of
namas and rupas as anatta.

We also discussed accumulations some people may have for strong attachment or
aversion after many years of study/practice or how in Hong Kong, people may
think their practice is just for the two hours study and reflection only and
they don't see a relevance in their work, for example. In Myanmar, I think
Jessica was implying that the Dhamma is a part of life. Again, I think it comes
back to the understanding of whatever dhammas are conditioned at the present
moment.

We both agreed that accumulations are so deep-rooted and that the path takes a
long time  and very much depends on the understanding. If we take the attchment
or aversion for ourself or have remorse about it, it doesn't help at all. Rather
than trying to change them, it's better to just understand the realities which
are conditioned already at this moment and then gone immediately. A couple of
times, Jessica mentioned that the emphasis (which I was stressing) on the 'now'
reminded her of a former Zen teacher. The other day, Cindy had made a similar
comment. Yes, it's about understanding 'now', but there has to be a lot of
careful considering to know what can be understood now - the realities of seeing
or thinking, rather than the concepts of 'moving the cup' or 'listening to the
piano'.

While we talked, there was some piano music in the background - we hear the
sounds in between the discussion and immediately there is the thinking about
what is heard.

There were also some good (and challenging questions) about the Goal, nibbana,
but we agreed on all the points I think - about all conditioned dhammas being
Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha, the eradication of defilements as goal and
then back to 'now'.

At one point we also touched on 'fitting in' with others. We may be with family
or friends who are interested in chatting about anything except the Dhamma, but
the test is always at the present moment. Similarly, there may be a lot of
traffic outside the temple or someone may have the T.V. on too loud - but these
are also the opportunities for awareness, understanding, metta and wholesome
dhammas. Actually, we agreed on most topics and I was very impressed by
Jessica's careful consideration that has obviously taken place over the years.
She has a strong meditation practice, but also a keen interest in Abhidhamma
now. There was a lot of friendly humour and 'lightness' in our discussion -
nothing too serious or heavy. I like this style - we all know we have some
differences in understanding, but we can share them without taking ourselves or
our views too seriously.

Jessica may add a few comments if she has time after the weekend - we all have
different impressions after any occasion, depending on our thinking. In any
case, it's helpful for me to consider a little more as I reflect on a few of
these points.

Metta,

Sarah
p.s Jessica, the audio section I mentioned is at this link, under the archived
post numbers:
http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/

Also, before I forget, the dates for our discussions in Bangkok with A.Sujin
will be 7th -14th Feb if you(or anyone else) are free to join any of them.
========== 


#92070 From: "sprlrt" <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:00 am 
Subject: More on anatta  sprlrt 
  Hi (I'm back online),
All sankhara (all dhammaa but Nibbana) are anicca and also dukkha, all
dhammaa (including Nibbana) are anatta
The first two characteristics/lakkhana of nama and rupa dhammaa,
anicca and dukkha, seem somehow 'easier' to see and accept and
understand than the third, we can relate to the former without too
much effort, they have more relevance to our everyday experiences,
birth, ageing and death, sorrows etc.
Anattaness on the contrary is an alien concept, it isn' reassuring at
all, it sounds more like a threat than an attainment. So we prefer to
leave it to ariyans, as a subject too advanced for our
studies/considerations (maybe later).
But actually it is the other way around (ref. KS' SoPD, Vipassana
bhavana chapter):
The first level (taruna/weak) of vipassana, namarupa-pariccheda nana,
the distinction between nama and rupa dhammaa, requires the experience
of nama or rupa as anatta (i.e. no self to interfere with it)
characteric of anatta, is a requirement for the first
The characteric of anicca, the arising and falling away of nama and
rupa dhammaa, begins to be known only at the third level of vipassana,
sammasana-nana, the first balava/strong.
The characteric of dukkha, unsatisfactoriness inherent in all nama and
rupa dhammaa, begins to be known only at the eight level of vipassana,
nibbida-nana

Alberto 


#92071 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:42 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG (and Alex & Scott) -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:


Hi  Howard, Alex, Scott, All


In a message dated 10/28/2008 9:12:30 P.M.  Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:   This is resolved by remembering that naama is different from
ruupa. And  by  remembering that sloth and torpor are naama - they are
immaterial  in  nature. Naama is the reality that experiences; ruupa is
the  reality that  does not experience  anything.

Dhammasa"nga.Dhammasa"nga.



........................................................................


TG:   This may be the Abhidhamma view but it isn't mine.  The body  and  mind
are an interactive organism and function in unison.  The  mind  cannot
experience without the body, the body cannot experience  without the  mind.
What I see
above in this passage is way too  extreme.  IMO, the  mind and body are
extensions of each  other...they support each other.  The  Buddha said
this...


“This body of mine, made of material form,  consisting of  the four great
elements, procreated by a mother and  father, and built up out of  boiled
rice and
porridge, is subject to  impermanence, to being worn and rubbed  away, to
dissolution and  disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is  supported
by it
and bound up with it.�
"Consciousness is supported by  the 4GE's  and bound up with it."  This
doesn't sound like the blatant   dichotomy of the Dhammasangani remark above.
  Once
again, this is  an  example of what happens with strict categorization of
phenomena  that cannot, in  reality, be separated into these artificial
"absolutes."

Contact is the coming together  of sense  object, sense organ, and
corresponding consciousness.  These  three  "together" are responsible for
feeling/experience.  Two  out of the three  are rupa.  It is THIS UNIT that
feels.  Not  some
"independent  consciousness."
So in my view, the   Dhammasangani does not clarify it, it distorts it.
TG OUT
==================================
     A couple points.
     First, TG: Well, Scott points out their  distinctness and their
difference in nature and function, but he doesn't assert,  as I understand him,
their
indepemdence. I think the Abhidhamma, just as the  suttas, does recognize the
two-way interaction between mentality and  materiality, with each serving as
engendering condition for the other under a  variety of conditions. Nama-created
rupas and rupa-created cittas are both  countenanced by Abhidhamma if my
recollection of the Compendium isn't in error.  (Of course, from everyday
experience, nama-created mind is obvious, an example  being the motion of our
eyelids
when we open them or of our arm when we reach  for something. And rupa-created
mind is also obvious, when pressure on the body  elicits pain, for example.)
     Secondly, Scott: I wish that you had added a bit  more of your own
understanding and a summing up of the material you kindly  quoted in your post.
Perhaps you could still say a drop more?

With metta,
Howard




#92072 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:50 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear Howard,

Thanks for:

H: "I wish that you had added a bit more of your own understanding and
a summing up of the material you kindly  quoted in your post.
Perhaps you could still say a drop more?"

Scott: My problem is that I can't countenance my own opinions and
don't like to have them, let alone give them.  I just want to
understand the material, and, I guess, I post it as something for
others to consider.  Views arise anyway.  The material just made sense
to me somehow, as I read it during Luke's soccer practise.  Sorry if
this disappoints.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92073 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:27 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati CAN be unwholesome. Buddha says so. I trust him. This sett...  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Scott (Alex, TG, Howard & all),

Thanks for your helpful comments and all of you (and others?) for the
interesting discussion.

In case it's of any assistance/interest, we had a little discussion on wrong
mindfulness ages ago. You may like to take a look at these messages. I'm sure
there were others, but this is what I found easily and of relevance.

Kom:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14870
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15118

Sarah:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15253

>S: Mostly I’m just quoting from Nina’s ‘Conditions’ which can be found
at:
http://www.zolag.co.uk/

Amongst the 24 paccaya (conditions), there are magga paccaya (path
condition) and jhana paccaya (jhana condition). I think it’s very helpful
to consider the wrong factors as well as the right ones as wrong view will
lead to the taking of the wrong ones for the right ones.

Nina writes in the chapter on Path Condition:
.....
“Path-factors can be akusala cetasikas which constitute the wrong path, or
they can be sobhana cetasikas which constitute the right path. The
path-factors of the wrong path lead downwards, to an unhappy rebirth, and
the path-factors of the right path lead to a happy rebirth, or, when they
are constituents of the noble eightfold Path, they lead to deliverance
from the cycle of birth and death.

In the “Dialologues of the Buddha� (III, no. 33, The Recital, VIII) the
path-factors of the wrong path are summed up as follows:

Eight wrong factors of character and conduct, to wit, wrong views,
thinking, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration.

Wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood are not cetasikas, but
they are unwholesome actions motivated by akusala cetanaa, unwholesome
volition, which accompanies akusala citta. Neither is wrong mindfulness a
cetasika, but it designates lack of attention to kusala, lack of
mindfulness which is a property of akusala citta. The cetasika
mindfulness, sati, can only accompany sobhana citta, it cannot be akusala.
Since the four factors of wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood and
wrong mindfulness are not cetasikas they are not conditioning factors of
path-condition.

The other four factors of the wrong path are akusala cetasikas, namely:
wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong effort and wrong concentration. Thus,
they are conditioning factors of path-condition. We read in the
“Pa.t.thaana� (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, § 432, IV):

Faulty state (akusala dhamma) is related to faulty state by
path-condition. Faulty path-factors are related to their associated
khandhas by path-condition.

Wrong view (micchaa-di.t.thi) is an akusala cetasika arising with four types of
lobha-muula-citta. There can be wrong view about kamma and vipaaka, onemay
believe that good and bad deeds do not produce their appropriate results. It is
wrong view to take realities for permanent or for “self�. Wrong view
conditions wrong practice of the Dhamma, it conditions taking the wrong path for
the right path....� <end quote.>

Howard, I also agreed with your comments - I liked: " '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.....". Later: "..I think that wrong
mindfulness is a counterfeit - a mistaken substitute for mindfulness
sufficiently similar to be mistaken for it."

Metta,

Sarah
========== 


#92074 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:08 am 
Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 4, no 6.  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Nina -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 3:02:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
vangorko@... writes:

Hi  Howard,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 15:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende  geschreven:

> This morning I heard Kh Sujin speak about anattaa:  <Do we understand
> anattaa? Or do we only know it on the level of  thinking? At this
> moment sati and pa~n~naa are anattaa.>
>  --------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>  Yes, so? What has this to do with my point?
-------
N: It has. I think  it is basic to see that sati is anatta. And not
just thinking of the  story of anatta.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Of course. It is certainly important to see that  sati and all other
phenomena partake of all the tilakkhana. I am well aware that  sati is
conditioned, impersonal, not amenable to whim and not-self, and  quite
transient(!).
     In particular, by my meditation  practice, I can when sati is weak,
strong, or missing.
------------------------------------------


Now  I have to be at the texts Scott just posted and this will take me
a  while.
You wrote: <When ill and exhausted, as for example I have  been
recently due to asthmatic
bronchitis and to the antibiotic  taken..>  Sorry to hear this and
hope you will be better  soon. But the way you take it is very good,
there is always  something to be studied.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Thanks, Nina - yes there is always something to be  attended to.
------------------------------------------------


Nina.
=========================
With metta,
Howard



#92075 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:18 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Phil (and Nina) -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 4:07:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
philco777@... writes:

What of  this nimitta? I don't understand how we can be aware of
nama and rupa that  we know from the theory rises and falls away a
billion times a second or  whatever, but I can accept the idea of
there being a nimitta that remains  behind after the realities have
fallen away. Is that what we are aware of?  I remember in a talk from
a couple of years ago you were surprised when  A.S said it was the
nimitta of the characteristic of the reality rather  than the
characteristic of the reality itself that awareness knows, "this  is
new!" you exclaimed. Why was that? Did A.S put a new emphasis on
nimitta of reality rather than actual characteristic of reality. If
she did it makes sense to me, it seems the only way there could
possibly be awareness of such a fleeting object.
===============================
     It occurs to me to relate this business of us,  as worldlings,
recognizing* only signs of phenomena, to the signless  consciousness of arahants
and to
signless awakening. I think this is a possible  area of interest. Perhaps we
see now "as through a glass, darkly, but then face  to face"!

With metta,
Howard

* Of course, we DO see sights, hear sounds, etc as well, but our  recognition
process distances us from them.



#92076 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:56 am 
Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi again, TG, Ale, and Scott -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 8:43:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

(Of  course, from everyday
experience, nama-created mind is obvious, an  example  being the motion of
our eyelids
when we open them or of our  arm when we reach  for something. And
rupa-created
mind is also  obvious, when pressure on the body  elicits pain, for  example.)
==========================
     I suppose that you may realize that "nama-created  mind " was supposed to
have been "nama-created rupa." Sorry.

With metta,
Howard


#92077 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:10 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] A get-together with Jessica  nilovg 
  Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your lively report on the discussions with Jessica.
We are not sure when we shall go to Bgk again, but when are they all
going to India? I thought it was February? We may come before or
after their trip.
Nina.
Op 29-okt-2008, om 13:24 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven:

> the dates for our discussions in Bangkok with A.Sujin will be 7th
> -14th Feb



#92078 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:15 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 1.  nilovg 
  Hi Phil,
Op 29-okt-2008, om 9:08 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven:

> I thought that yoni looked familiar from
> somewhere!
------
N: Yes, it is also in yoniso manasikaara: attention down to its
origin and foundation, properly.
Nina.



#92079 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:19 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  nilovg 
  Dear Phil,
Op 29-okt-2008, om 9:07 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven:

> but I can accept the idea of
> there being a nimitta that remains behind after the realities have
> fallen away. Is that what we are aware of? I remember in a talk from
> a couple of years ago you were surprised when A.S said it was the
> nimitta of the characteristic of the reality rather than the
> characteristic of the reality itself that awareness knows, "this is
> new!" you exclaimed. Why was that? Did A.S put a new emphasis on
> nimitta of reality rather than actual characteristic of reality. If
> she did it makes sense to me, it seems the only way there could
> possibly be awareness of such a fleeting object. I'm going to skype
> with Sarah about this on Saturday, so any thoughts on this would be
> appreciated....
-------
N:Wonderful you will skype with Sarah. I asked the same question
several times, you know. That happens when we are not yet satisfied
or sure. But last time I understood: it is good to know about
nimitta, but no need to worry, just be aware of any characteristic
that appears.
That is the Path to be followed, and I do not worry or think much
about nimitta.
Nina.



#92080 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:24 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Present moment, was Talking with Scott  nilovg 
  Hi TG,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 2:50 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven:

> TG: The teaching is about neither. In fact, a great deal of the
> Buddha's
> teaching is about "things gone by." Reflections on impermanence,
> etc. You
> are focusing on one aspect of the teaching at the exclusion or
> diminution of
> many other important aspects of the teaching. It is out of whack.
--------
N: This morning I heard on the recording someone asking why Kh Sujin
always speaks about the present moment.
Her answer: One will not understand what the present moment is if one
does not study the paramattha dhammas of citta, cetasika and rupa.
These arise for an extremely short moment and then fall away
immediately.
At this moment there must be naama otherwise nothing would appear.
Citta arises, cognizes what appears and then falls away. Rupa that
appears now is real, it has the characteristic of non-self. But the
whole body is remembered and that is only a story one can think of,
there is atta sa~n~naa, wrong remembrance of self.
One citta arises at a time and cognizes what appears, through one of
the six doors, and that is present. The Buddha taught what is present
and that is the Dhamma that is true.>
I can add: no world could appear if there were no citta that
experiences an object. It directly experiences only one object at a
time, and when it seems that a whole body or the whole world is
experienced, that is only a thinking moment. Thinking thinks of
concepts of a whole and then there is wrong remembrance of atta, self.
We cannot understand impermanence by reflecting, only by developing
insight of one nama or rupa at a time as they appear at the present
moment. If it is not at the present moment their charactreistics
cannot be known.
I have to close down discussions now since texts posted by Scott, and
later on by Larry will take up all my attention and time.
-------
Nina.



#92081 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:29 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Dear Han,
I can learn a lot from you, excellent post.
Op 28-okt-2008, om 23:35 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven:

> I want them to be brave like the family in the background story to
> Dhammapada Verse 212. When the son of a Brahmin (Bodhisatta) died
> of snake bite, the father, the mother, the wife, and the maid did
> not cry. As it was very strange the Sakka came down to earth
> disguised as a man and asked them why they did not cry. The answers
> given by them were very remarkable.
-------
I have to look it up but remember that they gave attention to
mindfulness of death each day: Also I am subject to death (the sutta
about five things to be contemplated).
Lodewijk made a file: old age, sickness and death, containing similar
things as you wrote for your wife. Practical things, what to do.
Nina.



#92082 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:36 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Hi James,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 14:16 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven:

> Since Nina and Han are the most senior members of this group (I
> think) perhaps they can join this thread and post about how they
> reflect on death. Since death is more certain for them than for the
> younger members (although it is certain for all of us). Do they
> feel that Death is a taboo subject? Are they comfortable when
> others speak of death? Have they considered their own deaths? Etc.
-------
N: It seems that I am more preoccupied with Lodewijk's death. The
person who stays behind suffers most.
But worth reflecting are the words used by Sarah recently: just like
now. Each citta arises and falls away and so it will be in the case
of the last citta, it will be succeeded by the following one, the
rebirth-consciousness. It is not of much use to think of the future,
but our present task: know this moment now, citta now. What type of
citta is reflecting on death, akusala citta with fear or kusala citta
with wisdom? That changes all the time also.
Nina.



#92083 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:39 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott, All


In a message dated 10/29/2008 6:03:13 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  This is nothing more than ordinary mind-body dualism - a
recycled,  'buddhicised'recycled,  'buddhicised'<WBR>, and ele
simplified  modern psychology. Why? Because 'mind' and 'body' are
meant here to  describe wholes - I don't think, given the view, that
this could refer to  the interaction of naama and ruupa *in the
moment*, or to distinct  realities. I wouldn't be surprised if the
view didn't include 'brain' and  winds up being purely a
quasi-materialistic view.


.......................................................


TG:  The mind and body is a system, not a "whole."

There is no such thing as "distinct realities."  That's nothing more  than
inputting "self-view" into elements.


.........................................................






TG: "The Buddha said this..."

Scott: Would you please  reference the textual supports you provide for
these views?

..............................................

TG:  I did.  Why did you delete it and not include it here?


.............................................................






TG: "Contact is the coming together of sense object, sense  organ, and
corresponding consciousness. These three 'together' are  responsible
for feeling/experience. Two out of the three are rupa. It is  THIS
UNIT that feels. Not some 'independent  consciousness.UNIT

Scott: Again, this might as well be Psychology  101. Why? Because it
refers to a unit,
....................................................


TG:  The "unit" refers to the coming together of sense base, sense  object,
and corresponding consciousness.  I would have thought that was  obvious.  Do
you object to the Buddha's teaching now...are do you not  recognize that as the
Buddha's teaching?  Seems elementary Buddhism to  me.  Call it what you wish.
   LOL



No more time here.   TG OUT

.................................................................



#92084 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:03 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Nina (and James and Han) -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 11:36:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
vangorko@... writes:

Hi  James,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 14:16 heeft buddhatrue het volgende  geschreven:

> Since Nina and Han are the most senior members of this  group (I
> think) perhaps they can join this thread and post about how  they
> reflect on death. Since death is more certain for them than for  the
> younger members (although it is certain for all of us). Do  they
> feel that Death is a taboo subject? Are they comfortable  when
> others speak of death? Have they considered their own deaths?  Etc.
-------
N: It seems that I am more preoccupied with Lodewijk's  death. The
person who stays behind suffers most.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     This is true. But that very point makes one  concerned with the effect
that one's own passing would have on those remaining.  As I know the grief I
would have for my wife should she be gone, I likewise know  the grief she would
have for me. So long as we are worldlings or even lesser  ariyans, along with
love comes attachment, and grief is the price we pay for  that, a price I am
willing to pay, for to not love out of fear of grief is  to already lose.
------------------------------------------------


But  worth reflecting are the words used by Sarah recently: just like
now. Each citta arises and falls away and so it will be in the case
of the last citta, it will be succeeded by the following one, the
rebirth-consciousness. It is not of much use to think of the future,
but our present task: know this moment now, citta now. What type of
citta is reflecting on death, akusala citta with fear or kusala  citta
with wisdom? That changes all the time  also.
Nina.

========================
With metta,
Howard

P. S. Han, my heart is with you, my friend.



#92085 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:04 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard, Scott, All


Here is the difference.  Scott says that Nama is the reality that
experiences.  I say Nama IS experience.  Scotts view has "realities"  that are
"experiencer's" -- i.e., Namas.  My view does not.  It just  has experience due
to
conditions.


Therefore, Scott's vision is the dualistic one that is bent on  dichotomizing
phenomena into separate realities.  My vision is not bent on  dichotomizing
phenomena into separate realities.  Nor in seeing things as  "wholes" as Scott
charges.  It just sees changing selfless  conditions.


Few more comments below...



In a message dated 10/29/2008 6:43:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

A  couple points.
First, TG: Well, Scott points out their distinctness and  their
difference in nature and function, but he doesn't assert, as I  understand
him, their
indepemdence. I think the Abhidhamma, just as the  suttas, does recognize the
two-way interaction between mentality and  materiality,

.................................................


TG:  I think they understand them differently.  In the Suttas  there are
dichotomized for purposes of analysis.  No ontological "reality"  is applied to
them.  They are mere appearances, hollow, coreless, alien,  empty, like a
mirage, etc.


In the Abhidhamma commentaries, they are dichotomized and "ontologized" as
"ultimate realities with their own characteristics."  They are
substantialized, they have "their own-ness," they are distinct.


............................................................



with  each serving as
engendering condition for the other under a variety of  conditions.

..............................................................


TG:  So so.  The idea of "each" means they have been  conceptualized as
separates.  For analysis, yes.  In actuality,  no.  If we were trying to present
the actuality of phenomena, then this  would be a poor statement that would need
work or a retro explanation.


.........................................................



Nama-created
rupas and rupa-created cittas are both countenanced by  Abhidhamma if my
recollection of the Compendium isn't in error. (Of  course, from everyday
experience, nama-created mind is obvious, an example  being the motion of our
eyelids
when we open them or of our arm when we  reach for something.

............................................................


TG:  That's one-sided.  We blink eyes due to dryness.  So it  can be seen as
a physical dryness that leads to the "auto" intention to blink,  that causes
the blink.  Its a back and forth....always.  If anything,  the argument that
the physical conditions generate the mental reactions makes  more sense.  IMO


...............................................................


And  rupa-created
mind is also obvious, when pressure on the body elicits pain,  for example.)
..............................................................

TG:  OK, you got it here.  But the blinking is more similar  to this example.


TG OUT


.................................................................




#92086 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:40 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG (and Scott) -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 12:05:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

Hi  Howard, Scott, All


Here is the difference.  Scott says that  Nama is the reality that
experiences.  I say Nama IS  experience.
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
     And I say that nama is experiencING. ;-) But  basically, we agree on
this. Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses  and leads to
atta-view.
------------------------------------------

Scotts view has "realities"  that are
"experiencer's" -- i.e.,  Namas.  My view does not.  It just  has experience
due to
conditions.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I see this as you express it. As for how Scott sees  the matter, perhaps
his perspective and his expressing of it don't quite  match. I can't get into
anyone's head. (Except for my wife, for we seem to think  the same way at the
same time practically all the time.)
-----------------------------------------




Therefore, Scott's vision is the dualistic one that is bent  on
dichotomizing
phenomena into separate  realities.
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
     I prefer to avoid characterizing who does what, but  rather to just
discuss issues. I think that works best all around.
-----------------------------------------

My  vision is not bent on  dichotomizing
phenomena into separate  realities.  Nor in seeing things as  "wholes" as
Scott
charges.  It just sees changing selfless   conditions.


Few more comments below...



In a message  dated 10/29/2008 6:43:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

A  couple points.
First, TG: Well,  Scott points out their distinctness and  their
difference in nature  and function, but he doesn't assert, as I  understand
him, their
indepemdence. I think the Abhidhamma, just as the  suttas, does  recognize
the
two-way interaction between mentality and  materiality,

.................................................


TG:   I think they understand them differently.  In the Suttas  there are
dichotomized for purposes of analysis.  No ontological  "reality"  is applied
to
them.  They are mere appearances,  hollow, coreless, alien,  empty, like a
mirage,  etc.
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I'm not certain it is any different in the  Abhidhamma, though it may
well be different in the commentaries and in Khun  Sujin's perspective on the
Abhidhamma.
----------------------------------------------




In the Abhidhamma commentaries, they are dichotomized and  "ontologized" as
"ultimate realities with their own  characteristics."  They are
substantialized, they have "their  own-ness," they are distinct.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     So it appears. I have heard others say that the  Abhidhamma Pitaka per se
is not so.
----------------------------------------------




............................................................



with   each serving as
engendering condition for the other under a variety  of  conditions.

..............................................................


TG:   So so.  The idea of "each" means they have been  conceptualized as
separates.  For analysis, yes.  In actuality,   no.
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
     They are not separable or independent, but they are  certainly
distinguishable, at least to me. You don't identify smelling of  onions (nama)
with
onion-odor (rupa), do you? Or identify disliking a  tickling sensation (nama)
with
the sensation (rupa)?
-----------------------------------------

If we were trying to present
the actuality of phenomena, then this   would be a poor statement that would
need
work or a retro  explanation.


.........................................................



Nama-created
rupas and rupa-created cittas are both countenanced by  Abhidhamma if  my
recollection of the Compendium isn't in error. (Of  course, from  everyday
experience, nama-created mind is obvious, an example  being  the motion of
our
eyelids
when we open them or of our arm when  we  reach for something.

............................................................


TG:   That's one-sided.  We blink eyes due to dryness.  So it  can be  seen
as
a physical dryness that leads to the "auto" intention to  blink,  that causes
the blink.  Its a back and  forth....always.  If anything,  the argument that
the physical  conditions generate the mental reactions makes  more sense.
IMO
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     There is ongoing back & forth conditioning  between nama and rupa. But
when we move our arm to reach for some buttered  muffin, the motion (rupa) is
directly conditioned at least in part by desire and  will (namas).
-------------------------------------------




...............................................................


And   rupa-created
mind is also obvious, when pressure on the body elicits  pain,  for  example.)
..............................................................

TG:   OK, you got it here.  But the blinking is more similar  to this
example.


TG  OUT


.................................................................




Secondly,  Scott: I wish that you had added a bit more of your own
understanding and a summing up of the material you kindly quoted in  your
post.
Perhaps you could still say a drop  more?

With  metta,
Howard

=============================
With metta,
Howard


#92087 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:16 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard


In a message dated 10/29/2008 10:41:29 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
And I say that nama is experiencING. ;-) But basically, we  agree on
this. Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses and  leads to
atta-view.
------------------------------------------
...................................................


NEW TG:  I started off to say what you said -- "nama is experiencing"  -- and
then thought it wasn't accurate enough so I changed it.    Because there
isn't a "thing" nama that is experiencing.  There is just  experience.  Now, you
may have meant that -- nama is mere  "experiencing."  That would be OK.  The
statement as you wrote it  can be read two ways.  (I've done it many times.) 
LOL

..................................................





Scotts view has "realities" that are
"experiencer'"experiencer'<WBR>s"  -- i.e., Namas. My view does not. It ju
due to
conditions.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
I  see this as you express it. As for how Scott sees the matter, perhaps
his  perspective and his expressing of it don't quite match. I can't get into

anyone's head. (Except for my wife, for we seem to think the same way at  the
same time practically all the  time.)
-----------------------------------------

Therefore,  Scott's vision is the dualistic one that is bent on
dichotomizing
phenomena into separate  realities.
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
I  prefer to avoid characterizing who does what, but rather to just
discuss  issues. I think that works best all  around.
-----------------------------------------
............................................................

NEW TG:  Just for clarity and future reference, I'll concede Scott's
declaration that he merely regurgitates what is in the texts and doesn't express
his
own views.  BTW, I'm trying to unload some swampland  .... LOL   No, he does
a good job with that.  But does it  get us anywhere?  Just knowing what a
"tradition says" doesn't mean you  understand it in the slightest.  Especially
with so many incongruities  between the Suttas and Commentaries.  Apparently,
there is just "buying"  the commentaries without critical thought or comparison.
Seems weird to  me.   LOL


I'll assume that the otherwise unanswered part of this section means you're
in full agreement with me.   LOL


TG OUT


...............................................................



#92088 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:34 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 1:17:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

Hi  Howard


In a message dated 10/29/2008 10:41:29 A.M. Mountain  Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
And I say  that nama is experiencING. ;-) But basically, we  agree on
this.  Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses and  leads to
atta-view.
------------------------------------------
...................................................


NEW  TG:  I started off to say what you said -- "nama is experiencing"   --
and
then thought it wasn't accurate enough so I changed it.   Because there
isn't a "thing" nama that is experiencing.   There is just  experience.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Experience is just as much (or little) a "thing" as  is experiencing. I
see experiencing as a mental event, an occurrence, and so I  prefer that term.
I use "experience" to reference experiential content as  opposed to the
activity of experiencing. The bottom line, though. is that in any  Indo-European
language the use of nouns is unavoidable.
------------------------------------------------

Now, you
may have meant that -- nama is mere  "experiencing."  That would  be OK.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     That's exactly my meaning.
----------------------------------------------

The
statement as you wrote it  can be read two ways.  (I've done  it many times.)
  LOL
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Language is RIFE with ambiguity.
--------------------------------------------



..................................................





Scotts  view has "realities" that are
"experiencer'"experiencer'<WBR>s"  -- i.e., Namas. My view does  not. It ju
due to
conditions.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
I   see this as you express it. As for how Scott sees the matter, perhaps
his  perspective and his expressing of it don't quite match. I can't  get
into

anyone's head. (Except for my wife, for we seem to think the  same way at
the
same time practically all the   time.)
-----------------------------------------

Therefore,   Scott's vision is the dualistic one that is bent on
dichotomizing
phenomena into separate   realities.
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
I   prefer to avoid characterizing who does what, but rather to just
discuss  issues. I think that works best all   around.
-----------------------------------------
............................................................

NEW  TG:  Just for clarity and future reference, I'll concede Scott's
declaration that he merely regurgitates what is in the texts and doesn't
express  his
own views.  BTW, I'm trying to unload some  swampland  .... LOL
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     You old cynic, you! ;-)
--------------------------------------------

No, he does
a good job with that.  But does it  get us  anywhere?  Just knowing what a
"tradition says" doesn't mean  you  understand it in the slightest.
Especially
with so many  incongruities  between the Suttas and Commentaries.
Apparently,
there is just "buying"  the commentaries without critical thought or
comparison.
Seems weird to  me.   LOL


I'll  assume that the otherwise unanswered part of this section means you're

in full agreement with me.   LOL
------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I'd have to go check, but I'm just too  overwhelmed by illness &
antibiotic & prednisone - engendered sloth  & torpor to bother! LOL!
-----------------------------------------





TG OUT
=============================
With metta,
Howard



#92089 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:29 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Dear Han,
Op 28-okt-2008, om 23:35 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven:

> I do not want them to be crying at my bed-side when I die. I want
> them to be brave. I want them to be brave like the family in the
> background story to Dhammapada Verse 212. When the son of a Brahmin
> (Bodhisatta) died of snake bite, the father, the mother, the wife,
> and the maid did not cry. As it was very strange the Sakka came
> down to earth disguised as a man and asked them why they did not
> cry. The answers given by them were very remarkable. I do not have
> the English translation. Perhaps, Nina can help me in this regard
> with the English translation.
-------
I took from Rob K's web <http://www.vipassana.info/
i.htm#richhouseholder >: XVI (2) The Story of a Rich Householder

While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(212) of this book, with reference to a rich householder who had lost
his son.

Once, a householder was feeling very distressed over the death of his
son. He often went to the cemetery and wept there. Early one morning,
the Buddha saw the rich householder in his vision. So, taking a
bhikkhu along with him, the Buddha went to the house of that man.
There, he asked the man why he was feeling so unhappy. Then, the man
related to the Buddha about the death of his son and about the pain
and sorrow he was suffering. To him the Buddha said, "My disciple,
death does not occur only in one place. All beings that are born must
die one day; indeed, life ends in death. You must ever be mindful of
the fact that life ends in death. Do not imagine that only your
beloved son is subject to death. Do not be so distressed or be so
shaken. Sorrow and fear arise out of affection."

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 212: Affection begets sorrow, affection begets fear. For him
who is free from affection there is no sorrow; how can there be fear
for him?

At the end of the discourse, the rich householder attained Sotapatti
Fruition.

-------
The story you said is Jaataka 354. Very beautiful. Nobody cried. Too
long for me to type out. The verse:

Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past,
Even as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast.
No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead;
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread.

****
Nina.


#92090 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:39 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear Nina (James, Phil, Howard, Sarah),

Thank you very much for printing the background story of Dhammapada verse 212
taken from Rob K's web, and the reference to Jaataka 354.

Yes, the story I was referring to was Jaataka 354. This story of Jaataka 354
also appears as the second story in the Commentary to Dhammapada verse 212
(after The Story of a Rich Householder)

I will give the gist of the story. The father replied that his son had left like
a snake shedding the old skin. The body of his son had no feelings and could not
know the grief of the surving family members. So he did not cry.

The mother said that her son had come to them without their invitation, and when
the time came for him to leave he had left without their permission. So there
would not be any benefit by her crying and thus she did not cry.

The wife said that the person who cried for the person who had died was like a
child trying to ask for the moon in the sky. So there would be no meaning, and
thus she did not cry.

The sister said that by crying for the dead brother there would be no meaning
except that she would become frail and thin. So she did not cry.

The maid said that crying for the dead person was like the earthen pot which was
broken and the broken pieces could not be put back together again. So she did
not cry.

[The actual English translation would be much better than my above gist.]

--------------------

Han: The important point of this story was that the father (Bodhisatta) had the
mindfulness of death and he asked his family to have mindfulness of death all
the time, long before the son died. So the family members were conditioned to
have mindfulness of death and to face the death with equanimity. So they did not
cry when the son died. I read this story to my family many times.

Respectfully,
Han
P.S. Thank you Howard, for your kind words. 


#92091 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:38 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi Han

> At first I thought you were telling me that I was insensitive to the
sufferings of my loved ones. When I read you note again, I think I know
your true cetanaa towards our family.

   Yes, thank you. The point was that I thought *I* was being insenstive
to your family's feelings by praising the beautiful prose of the
paragraph without proper reflection on the human feelings implied,
including suffering at losing you.

   metta
   phil 


#92092 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:47 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  philofillet 
  Hi Nina

>I asked the same question
> several times, you know. That happens when we are not yet satisfied
> or sure. But last time I understood: it is good to know about
> nimitta, but no need to worry, just be aware of any characteristic
> that appears.
> That is the Path to be followed, and I do not worry or think much
> about nimitta.

   Hmm. I don't know about this answer, Nina. We are told we should be
very precise in our understanding, and here you are saying don't worry
about not understanding. I would like to know the difference between
being aware of characteristic of a reality, and the nimitta of a
reality that has fallen away. When A.S suddenly (suddenly enough for
you to say "this is new!" in a very intrigued way) says it is the
latter rather than the former, I think it is a very important point.

   On the other hand, I am appreciating that there are moments of being
aware of very momentary mental states or maybe phenomena, even if they
do not arise and fall away billions of times a second, and that
awareness on these is valuable whatever they are. But for the sake
of "pariyatta" I will insist on learning more about this nimitta and
why it suddenly became more emphasized in A.S talks. I will talk about
that with Sarah, amoung other things. (We will only have 45 minutes.)

    metta,
    phil 


#92093 From: "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:52 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  kenhowardau 
  Hi all,

I know there are DSG members from both camps (meditators and non-
meditators) who believe the Buddha sometimes taught conventional
truths. I am not one of them, and I don't believe I am missing out on
anything by not being one of them.

We are currently reading stories about wise people who were brave and
didn't cry in times of great loss. I see those stories as teaching
panna to know the falling-away of momentary namas and rupas.

If there are any Abhidhamma students who think I am overlooking an
aspect of the Buddha's actual teaching I would be glad to hear from
them.

Ken H 


#92094 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:03 pm 
Subject: Experiences vs Experiencing  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard, All


BTW, Hope your feeling better soon Howard.


I was thinking about 'experiencing' and decided the word is irrevocably  tied
in to a "self" or "entity" viewpoint. Experiencing means "something"  is
experiencing.


'Experiences,' on the other hand, does not denote or connote any
subjectivity.


From a deluded point of view, we think 'I am experiencing,' or,  Dhammas
(Dhammas entities) are experiencing.   But from a non-deluded  point of view,
there are just 'experiences' arising and passing away.  They  are not mine. 
They
are not "anything's."  They are just impersonal  conditions.


TG OUT


#92095 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:06 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi James

> >   Now some people who don't want Buddhism to be a religion will
> object
> > to the above, but it was the way the Buddha taught, and it
cannot
> be
> > changed.
>
> James: Yes, like it or not, the Buddha warned about a Hell
> destination.  Of course, this hell is not like the Judio/Christian
> version of Hell- but it is a reality, not a fantasy.

   Ph: Absolutely. "A reality, not a fantasy." Definitely something
that doesn't sit well with many westerners who come to Buddhism
having rejected Judeo/Christian teachings, but WHOOPS it is there.


>
>  People are quite right to point out that reflection on
> > momentary death that is the rising and falling away again of
> cittas is
> > also taught in Buddhism, but as far as I know (my research in
this
> > series will answer that question) it was taught only in the
> > commentaries. It is fair and good to reflect in those terms, but
> it is
> > not the primary means nor anywhere near the primary means by
which
> the
> > Buddha taught mindfulness of death.
>
> James: Bravo!  Quite right!  Momentary death is only emphasized in
> the Path of Purification, not by the Buddha.  Now, reflection on
> that type of death does have its purpose, but that isn't what the
> Buddha intended by Mindfulness of Death.  He meant to reflect on
the
> death of a sentinet being, and most specifically to reflect on
your
> own death.

   Ph: Yes, I was reading through the 8 recollections on death in
Vism this morning and it is very clear that only the 8th is in
momentary terms. (The 7th is the "time for one breath" sutta, which
I will be posting in my series, but that is not momentary in the way
the 8th is, the one moment of citta thing. That one moment of citta
is also mentionned in passing in the first recollection. Actually
before preceding with the series, I will post a brief summary of
that section.)

> Since Nina and Han are the most senior members of this group (I
> think) perhaps they can join this thread and post about how they
> reflect on death.  Since death is more certain for them than for
the
> younger members (although it is certain for all of us).  Do they
> feel that Death is a taboo subject?  Are they comfortable when
> others speak of death?  Have they considered their own deaths?
Etc.

   Ph: Well, I guess statistically speaking Nina and Han are more
probably to die sooner than you or I are, but maybe thinking in
these terms goes against the Buddha's urging. There are many, many,
many ways you can die today James! That's what he says. Are you
ready for that? Are there defilements that you are carrying with you
that you could be more diligent about getting rid of! That's the way
he teaches. I suspect thinking in the "Nina and Han are old so they
should be thinking more about death" is something to reflect on
maybe. Of course I share that thinking, not meaning to criticize
just to steer us back to the Buddha's emphasis on the many ways *we*
can die today! There are scorpions in your underpants, dude!

   metta,

   phil

> I am also reminded of a book I read a few months ago "Tuesdays
with
> Morrie".  Although that book didn't strike me a profoundly
Buddhist.
>
> >


#92096 From: "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:20 pm 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  kenhowardau 
  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Nina

. . .

> When A.S suddenly (suddenly enough for you to say "this is new!" in
a very intrigued way) says it is the
> latter rather than the former, I think it is a very important point.
>
>



Hi Phil,

My memory is not always good, but I am sure you have asked this
question before.  I know, at least, that other people have asked it
on various occasions. I was tempted to ask it too, at once stage.

The answer has always been quite straightforward and innocuous. :-) K
Sujin doesn't teach all the details at once; she waits for
appropriate times.

Ken H 


#92097 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:30 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  buddhatrue 
  Hi Nina,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom
<vangorko@...> wrote:
> -------
> N: It seems that I am more preoccupied with Lodewijk's death. The
> person who stays behind suffers most.

James: Thank you for your reflections.  This is interesting as it
reflects very much what Han wrote, that he is more concerned for
those left behind than for himself.  I guess that is compassion
which is a good virtue to possess.


> But worth reflecting are the words used by Sarah recently: just
like
> now. Each citta arises and falls away and so it will be in the
case
> of the last citta, it will be succeeded by the following one, the
> rebirth-consciousness. It is not of much use to think of the
future,
> but our present task: know this moment now, citta now. What type
of
> citta is reflecting on death, akusala citta with fear or kusala
citta
> with wisdom? That changes all the time also.

James: Right, but do you really know each citta as it arises and
falls away?  I know I don't that.  So, to me, that isn't a real
death.  It doesn't do much good to relect on something which I don't
directly know.  That is just philosophical pondering to me.  But
actual death, now that I know!  It is significant, permanent, and
knowable.

> Nina.
>

Metta,
James 


#92098 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:42 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  buddhatrue 
  Hi Phil,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...>
wrote:
>
>   Ph: Well, I guess statistically speaking Nina and Han are more
> probably to die sooner than you or I are, but maybe thinking in
> these terms goes against the Buddha's urging. There are many,
many,
> many ways you can die today James! That's what he says. Are you
> ready for that?

James: Hehehe...I was wondering if someone was going to call me on
that.  Yes, of course I should be reflecting on my own death; but,
as I stated before, I am not very good with death.  Hell, I was in a
state of shock when I noticed my first grey hair! LOL!  I wanted
more discussion on this issue because this is one of my weak areas,
not because I am Mr. Equanimity about Death. :-)

We all should be reflecting on death, but most of us are in denial.
As one gets older though, the denial has to lessen more and more.
Death does come closer and closer.  So, I asked Han and Nina because
I knew I would get real answers (and I did) not pie-in-the-sky
phlosophical answers.

Metta,
James 


#92099 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:42 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  Hi Ken

> I know there are DSG members from both camps (meditators and non-
> meditators) who believe the Buddha sometimes taught conventional
> truths. I am not one of them, and I don't believe I am missing out on
> anything by not being one of them.

   Hang in there with this series, Ken, try to stay open and read and
reflect and just maybe something will sink in. For example, you once
said that you couldn't understand the point on reflecting on illness,
old age, death and separation from the loved ones the way the Buddha
urges us all to do, "it would be a downer", you said, or words to that
effect. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Wow! You are *really* missing a
hugely important point there, Ken, if that is indeed the way you see
those recollections.

  BTW, I'm not intending to belittle you here, Ken. I appreciate your
insistence on the deep teachings. I just look forward to the day (in
vain, perhaps not) that you wake up to the beautiful way the
conventional teachings and the deep paramattha teachings work together
through us...(Us as people, which we continue to believe in, surely,
whether you admit it or not, and "us" that is just nama and rupa, the
deeper truth of things that is revealed to the deeply developed mind.)



  metta,

   phil 


#92100 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:12 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear James, Phil, Nina, Howard,

--------------------

> Nina: It seems that I am more preoccupied with Lodewijk's death. The person
who stays behind suffers most.

> Howard: This is true. But that very point makes one concerned with the effect
that one's own passing would have on those remaining. As I know the grief I
would have for my wife should she be gone, I likewise know the grief she would
have for me. So long as we are worldlings or even lesser ariyans, along with
love comes attachment, and grief is the price we pay for that, a price I am
willing to pay, for to not love out of fear of grief is to already lose.

--------------------

> Nina: It seems that I am more preoccupied with Lodewijk's death. The person
who stays behind suffers most.

> James: Thank you for your reflections. This is interesting as it reflects very
much what Han wrote, that he is more concerned for those left behind than for
himself. I guess that is compassion which is a good virtue to possess.

--------------------

Han: I thank you all for your very valuable comments.

Yes, I am more worried about my wife if I die before her. We are extended family
with children and grand-children living very closely. If I die first, my wife
will have not only the grief of losing her husband, but she will also have many
headaches in uniting, organizing and managing the extended family. When I am
gone, will they listen to her like they are listening now?

For these reasons, out of pity for her, I told my wife that I wish she will die
earlier than me. My wife agrees. But who knows who will go first?

Respectfully,
Han 


#92101 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:13 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 8:04:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

Hi  Howard, All


BTW, Hope your feeling better soon  Howard.
------------------------------------
Howard:
     Thanks! :-)
------------------------------------




I was thinking about 'experiencing' and decided the word is  irrevocably
tied
in to a "self" or "entity" viewpoint. Experiencing  means "something"  is
experiencing.
---------------------------------------
Howard:
     Not to me. When I say "It's raining," there is no  agent that is engaging
in an activity called raining.
----------------------------------------




'Experiences,' on the other hand, does not denote or  connote any
subjectivity.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     To me, experiences are what are experienced - they  are the content of
the event called experiencing.
------------------------------------------





From a deluded point of view, we think 'I am experiencing,'  or,  Dhammas
(Dhammas entities) are experiencing.   But  from a non-deluded  point of
view,
there are just 'experiences'  arising and passing away.
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
     There just the experiencing.
-----------------------------------------

They  are not mine.  They
are not "anything's."  They are  just impersonal  conditions.
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
     On that we concur.
==========================
With metta,
Howard




#92102 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:18 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG:

Regarding:

TG:  "The mind and body is a system, not a 'whole.'"

Scott: This is no better, TG.  What's a 'system'?

Me: "Would you please reference the textual supports you provide for
these views?"
TG:  "I did.  Why did you delete it and not include it here?"

Scott: Well, no, I don't think I deleted the reference.  Here's how it
came to me:

TG: "The Buddha said this...This body of mine, made of material form,
consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and
father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to
impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and
disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it
and bound up with it."

Scott: No reference in the original post.  I was only wondering what
sutta this was from.  I asked because the reference wasn't provided.

The Controversial Statement: "Contact is the coming together of sense
object, sense  organ, and corresponding consciousness. These three
'together' are  responsible for feeling/experience. Two out of the
three are rupa. It is THIS UNIT that feels. Not some 'independent
consciousness.UNIT"

TG:  "The 'unit' refers to the coming together of sense base, sense
object, and corresponding consciousness.  I would have thought that
was  obvious.  Do you object to the Buddha's teaching now...are do you
not  recognize that as the Buddha's teaching?  Seems elementary
Buddhism to me..."

Scott: Again, TG, the insistence that the take you present is
identical with 'the Buddha's teaching', while a gratifying notion,
doesn't make such a good argument in a discussion.  Do you accept that
this 'unit' - that is, the realities of which it consists - falls away
immediately upon arising?  I'd think not.  Hence you are referring to
a concept - a quasi-permanent entity you are calling a 'unit'.

As well, ruupa does not feel.  Feeling is naama.  And 'units' don't
feel either.  This is a whole or a compact or whatever one wishes to
call it, but this notion is a concept of your own creation.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92103 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG and Howard,

TG: "Here is the difference.  Scott says that Nama is the reality that
experiences.  I say Nama IS experience.  Scotts view has 'realities'
that are 'experiencer's' -- i.e., Namas.  My view does not.  It just
has experience due to conditions.  Therefore, Scott's vision is the
dualistic one that is bent on  dichotomizing phenomena into separate
realities.  My vision is not bent on dichotomizing phenomena into
separate realities.  Nor in seeing things as  'wholes' as Scott
charges.  It just sees changing selfless conditions."

Scott: I agree that naama is experience.  I also add that each citta
and cetasika have their own particular characteristics which, when
combined, 'create' the complexity of any given  momentary experience.
  Creating a straw man - a caricature of another's argument - and then
arguing against it, as is done above, isn't such a great mode of
discussion.  I don't consider there to be 'an experiencer' either.  I
still contend, TG, that you are only referring to conceptual wholes in
all this.  You've not satisfied me in any way with your arguments in
favour of the view you present.

And furthermore, since you bring it up again, this notion that 'seeing
sees conditions' is a view entirely of your own creation.  What is
'seeing'?  What are 'conditions' that they can be 'seen'?  You are
still referring to entities, their function, and objects while wanting
to deny there are any of these at all.  Not consistent in any way.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92104 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:52 pm 
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 2.  philofillet 
  Hi Ken

> My memory is not always good, but I am sure you have asked this
> question before.  I know, at least, that other people have asked it
> on various occasions. I was tempted to ask it too, at once stage.

   Yes, the main reason I ask is that it makes sense to me. How could
there be awareness of such a fleet dhamma, but if it is nimitta it
seems more understandable...


> The answer has always been quite straightforward and innocuous. :-) K
> Sujin doesn't teach all the details at once; she waits for
> appropriate times.

   Oh, I see. Fair enough. I would also be happy to accept that as  for
all of us her understanding is developing, and this is an aspect of the
teaching that became clearer to her recently. Thus Nina's surprise to
hear of it. That would make sense too, I think. Understanding develops
as the years go by. A.S is not exempted from that. (Unless she sprang
out of her mother's womb fully armed with perfect understanding, of
course.)

   metta,

   phil 



#92105 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:12 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard, All


In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:14:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

I was  thinking about 'experiencing' and decided the word is irrevocably
tied
in to a "self" or "entity" viewpoint. Experiencing means "something" is
experiencing.
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Not  to me. When I say "It's raining," there is no agent that is engaging
in an  activity called  raining.
----------------------------------------

'Experiences,'Experiences,<WBR>'  on the other hand, does not deno
subjectivity.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
To  me, experiences are what are experienced - they are the content of
the  event called  experiencing.
------------------------------------------
.......................................................................


TG:  'Experiences' are 'experience' ... pure and neutral.   "Experienced" or
"experiencing" means that there is a "subject" that is  experiencing.


(The "raining" analogy above doesn't seem to follow what I'm talking  about.
It also doesn't have anything to do with the terms experiencing or
experienced.  However, I would agree that what you stated about "raining"  is
not
subjective.  )



...................................................................





From a deluded point of view, we think 'I am  experiencing,From a deluded
(Dhammas entities) are experiencing. But  from a non-deluded point of
view,
there are just 'experiences' arising  and passing  away.
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
There  just the  experiencing.
-----------------------------------------

...............................................

TG  "Experiencing" by who or what???  This is my point.   From our deluded
point of view we think...."experiencing" or "experienced."  But in a nonself
actuality, it is just 'experience,' 'sensation.'   They are selfless conditions.
There is no "receiver" of that  experience...in actuality.  "Experiencing" or
"experienced" implies a  "receiver."  Therefore the terms represent a corrupt
outlook.  Picky  yes...but true I think.


TG OUT


..........................................................



#92106 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:15 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:19:31 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

TG:  "The Buddha said this...This body of mine, made of material  form,
consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother  and
father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject  to
impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution  and
disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by  it
and bound up with it."



.................................

Hi Scott

Sorry if reference didn't get included.  This statement by the Buddha  recurs
often throughout the Suttas.  I have it from   The  Buddha . . . MLDB, pg.
642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi  Sutta, #77


#92107 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:18 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  upasaka_howard 
  Hi again, TG -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 9:13:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

'Experiences,' on the other hand, does not denote or  connote  any
subjectivity.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
To me, experiences are what are experienced - they  are the content of
the event called  experiencing.
------------------------------------------
============================
     OTOH, I could just as well say, as you did, that  there is just the
experiencing. As you may know, for me everything is played out  on the stage of
mind - at least there is nothing known that is not! So, for me,  experiencing
(or
knowing) is merely the presence of the experience.

With metta,
Howard

/When knowing what is to be known, he doesn't construe an  [object as] known.
He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe an  [object] to-be-known.
He doesn't construe a knower./

(The Buddha, speaking of himself in the Kalakarama  Sutta)




#92108 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:17 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Thanks for:

TG: "Sorry if reference didn't get included.  This statement by the
Buddha  recurs often throughout the Suttas.  I have it from   The
Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin,
Mahasakuludayi  Sutta, #77."

Scott: I'll get right on it!  (To your great relief.) ;-)

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92109 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:23 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:30:28 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  I agree that naama is experience. I also add that each citta
and cetasika  have their own particular characteristics which, when
combined, 'create'  the complexity of any given momentary experience.
Creating a straw man - a  caricature of another's argument - and then
arguing against it, as is done  above, isn't such a great mode of
discussion. I don't consider there to be  'an experiencer' either. I
still contend, TG, that you are only referring  to conceptual wholes in
all this. You've not satisfied me in any way with  your arguments in
favour of the view you  present.



.................................................

Hi Scott

My dear friend, a "created caricature of someone else's argument" is
something you do ad nauseam.  You are constantly putting words in my mouth 
about
what my positions entail when it has nothing to do with my position.   Here you
do it again by "contending" I refer to conceptual wholes.   LOL  Sort of an
obsession with KS folks IMO.  They seem to think they  are the only ones with a
"handle" conceptual delusion.  To return a similar  remark you made to me
today...that seems like Buddhism 101.


However, I did like your first two sentences.  Regarding  "experiencer"... do
you agree that "Dhammas" are not "experiencers"  either?


TG OUT


#92110 From: Jessica Mui <jessicamui@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:25 pm 
Subject: Re:A get-together with Jessica  jessicamui 
  Dear Sarah and friends,
 
Thank you very much for writing the notes to capture our meeting yesterday.
Sarah did capture all the important things that we discussed.
 
Here, I'd like to add my impression about the meeting. First of all, it was my
great pleasure and pleasant surprise that I can meet with someone in Hong Kong
to discuss Dhamma for so long non-stop. It is also an "eye-opening" experience
for me that someone who practice the "wise reflection"(if I use the wrong terms,
pls correct me) of what the Abhidhamma taught could apply to moment to moment in
daily life, and reach a deep level of understand of the dhamma - the ultimate
reality. To me, the aware of the current moment body/mind phenomenon is the
practice of mindfulness meditation itself and seeing the reality is the wisdom.
After talking to Sarah and  finding out more about Sujin's teachings, I'm very
much interested in finding out more about this way of practice in daily life
moment after moment for it is emphasized by many meditation teachers, and it
is part of the practice of  Satipatthana.
 
While I was with Sarah, the thoughts and feelings that "Sarah is a very sweet,
and beautiful person" came up to the mind many times. I also wondered when her
smile would worn out ;). When Sarah used metta as an example to explain the
wholesome mind state, I felt that Sarah is surely cultivated a lot of metta in
her. I'm very happy to have a new Dhamma friend in Hong Kong. 
 
One of the biggest surprise from this meeting is about Eric - the taxi driver
that Sarah and Jon ran into a while back. In fact, Eric is a close family member
of our Dhamma family in Hong Kong. When Sarah recalled her discussion with a
taxi driver who knows about nama and rupa, Eric's name came up to my mind
immediately for it is nearly impossible to find another taxi driver who
practices jhana and knows abhidhamma in HK. Apart from the pleasant surprise,
I felt (and told) Sarah that it is the karma and Dhamma that bind us together.
There is not other way to explain this. This feeling also arose when Sarah told
me that she practiced with Munindragyi before in India, when I asked Sarah while
Dipa Ma's niece was visiting HK and she had been one of Munindgragyi's student
some 40 years ago.
 
Regarding meditation vs "wise reflection" on the current moment phenomena, I'd
like to share my experience about it. I practiced Zen meditation
"recreationally" for many years when I lived in Ottawa. I decided to take one
year leave of absence in 2001 and attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat. After
that I went to Myanmar to practice (Mahasi's technique) for 7 weeks. I went back
to Myanmar every year for the duration of 3 to 8 months each year until now.
Through paying attention (being mindful)to the moment to moment
body/mind phenomena, I gradually see the specific characteristics of the body
and mind, and slowly, seeing more and more about the arising and passing away of
these phenomena. When the mind becomes more mature, it sees the 3 marks and the
conditionality nature of it more and more often. In a way, the Dhamma that we
discussed yesterday were and still are experienced by me from time to time.
Therefore, based on my experience, I think
  meditation is a very important venue to "know" the Dhamma. For the recent
years, I also start to study the sutta and Abhidhamma. It helps my understanding
of the Dhamma and hence, increase the wisdom (for lack of better words) in the
mind.
 
I think one important thing that we both agreed strongly through yesterdays'
conversation is that panna is the most important thing. The cultivation of the
sati helps to arise of the panna. But awareness is not the end. Aware of the
ultimate reality is the wisdom. Therefore, the understanding of the Dhamma is
very important. If by studying and applying wise attention/reflection that one
can see the ultimate reality, that is a good venue to practice.
 
I look forward to meet with Sarah with Eric and other Dhamma friends next
month. 
 
I hope I can meet with A. Sujin early Feb.
 
By the way, Sarah, thank you again for the Dhamma books and everything ! 
 
Much Metta,
 
Jessica 



#92111 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:42 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 10:13:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:


TG  "Experiencing" by who or what???  This is my  point.   From our deluded
point of view we  think...."experiencing" or "experienced."  But in a nonself

actuality, it is just 'experience,' 'sensation.'   They are  selfless
conditions.
There is no "receiver" of that   experience...in actuality.  "Experiencing"
or
"experienced" implies  a  "receiver."  Therefore the terms represent a
corrupt
outlook.  Picky  yes...but true I think.
===========================
     TG, is there just sound but no hearing, just  sights but no seeing? There
is no who or what that hears - there is just the  hearing. There is no who or
what that sees - there is just the seeing. It seems  to me that you think
that if there is activity, it must be the activity OF some  actor. But I don't
think that way. There are just happenings. Seeing  and hearing and thinking etc
are all impersonal events that happen. The  general term for these activities
is 'experiencing'. Are you truly saying there  is no seeing, no hearing and no
thinking? It seems to me that you are saying  that as soon as one accepts
mental activities, one has accepted self-view. But  that just ain't so! No-self
doesn't imply no-mind. The Buddha wasn't the  teacher of no-self by being a
materialist.

With metta,
Howard


/A change  in anything is a change in  everything/

(Anonymous)


#92112 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:45 pm 
Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  upasaka_howard 
  Hi again, TG -

In a message dated 10/29/2008 10:17:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

OTOH, I  could just as well say, as you did, that  there is just the
experiencing. As you may know, for me everything is played out  on  the stage
of
mind - at least there is nothing known that is not! So, for  me,
experiencing (or
knowing) is merely the presence of the  experience.
=============================
     The last word of the first sentence should have  been 'experience', not
'experiencing'.

With metta,
Howard


 
#92113 From: LBIDD@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:02 pm 
Subject: Vism.XVII,309, 310  lbidd2 
  "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII

309. 6. [As to methods:] Then there are four methods of treating the
meaning here. They are (a) the method of identity, (b) the method of
diversity, (c) the method of uninterest,47 and (d) the method of
ineluctable regularity. So this Wheel of Becoming should also be known
accordingly 'as to the kinds of method'.48
-------------------------
Note 47. Avyaapaara--'uninterest': here the equivalent of anaabhoga, see
Ch. IV,171 and Ch. IX,108. The perhaps unorthodox form 'uninterest' has
been used to avoid the 'unselfish' sense sometimes implied by
'disinterestedness'. Vyaapaara is clearly intended throughout this work
as 'motivated action' in contrast with 'blind action of natural forces'.
The word 'interest' has therefore been chosen to bring out this effect.

48. Note 48 to follow in next email due to extra long length.
------------------------------
310. (a) Herein, the non-interruption of the continuity in this way,
'With ignorance as condition there are formations; with formations as
condition, consciousness', just like a seed's reaching the state of a
tree through the state of a shoot, etc., is called the 'method of
identity'. One who sees this rightly abandons the annihilation view by
understanding the unbrokenness of the continuity that occurs through the
linking of cause and fruit. And one who sees it wrongly clings to the
eternity view by apprehending identity in the non-interruption of the
continuity that occurs through the linking of cause and fruit.
**************************
309. yasmaa panettha ekattanayo, naanattanayo, abyaapaaranayo,
eva.mdhammataanayoti cattaaro atthanayaa honti, tasmaa nayabhedatopeta.m
bhavacakka.m vi~n~naatabba.m yathaaraha.m.
 
310. tattha avijjaapaccayaa sa"nkhaaraa, sa"nkhaarapaccayaa
vi~n~naa.nanti eva.m biijassa a"nkuraadibhaavena rukkhabhaavappatti viya
santaanaanupacchedo
ekattanayo naama. ya.m sammaa passanto hetuphalasambandhena santaanassa
anupacchedaavabodhato ucchedadi.t.thi.m pajahati. micchaa passanto
hetuphalasambandhena pavattamaanassa santaanaanupacchedassa
ekattagaha.nato sassatadi.t.thi.m upaadiyati. 


#92114 From: LBIDD@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:22 pm 
Subject: Vism.XVII,note 48  lbidd2 
  "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII

48. The dependent origination, or structure of conditions, appears as a
flexible formula with the intention of describing the ordinary human
situation of a man in his world (or indeed any conscious event where
ignorance and craving have not entirely ceased). That situation is
always complex, since it is implicit that consciousness with no object,
or being (bhava--becoming, or however rendered) without consciousness
(of it), is impossible except as an artificial abstraction. The
dependent origination, being designed to portray the essentials of that
situation in the limited dimensions of words and using only elements
recognizable in experience, is not a logical proposition (Descartes'
cogito is not a logical proposition). Nor is it a temporal
cause-and-effect chain: each member has to be examined as to its nature
in order to determine what its relations to the others are (e.g. whether
successive in time or conascent, positive or negative, etc., etc.). A
purely cause-and effect chain would not represent the pattern of a
situation that is always complex, always subjective-objective,
static-dynamic, positive-negative, and so on. Again, there is no
evidence of any historical development in the various forms given
'within the limit of the Sutta Pi.taka' (leaving aside the
Pa.tisambhidaamagga), and historical treatment within that particular
limit is likely to mislead, if it is hypothesis with no foundation.

Parallels with European thought have been avoided in this translation.
But perhaps an exception can be made here, with due caution, in the case
of Descartes. The revolution in European thought started by his formula
'Cogito ergo sum' ('I think, therefore I am") is not yet ended. Now it
will perhaps not escape notice that the two elements, 'I think' and 'I
am', in what is not a logical proposition parallel to some extent the
two members of the dependent origination,
consciousness and being (becoming). In other words, consciousness
activated by craving and clinging as the dynamic factory, guided and
blinkered by ignorance ('I think' or 'consciousness with the conceit "I
am" '), conditions being
('therefore I am') in a complex relationship with other factors relating
subject and object (not accounted for by Descartes). The parallel should
not be pushed too far. In fact it is only introduced because in Europe
the dependent origination seems to be very largely misunderstood with
many strange interpretations placed upon it, and because the 'cogito'
does seem to offer some sort of reasonable approach.

In this work, for convenience because of the special importance attached
here to the aspect of the death-rebirth link, the dependent origination
is considered from only one standpoint, namely, as applicable to a
period embracing a minimum of three lives. But this is not the only
application. With suitable modifications it is also used in the
Vibha"nga to describe the structure of the complex in each of the 89
single type-consciousnesses laid down in the Dhammasa"nga.nii; and
Bhadantaacariya Buddhaghosa says: 'This structure of conditions is
present not only in (a continuity period consisting of) multiple
consciousnesses but also in each single consciousness as well' (VbhA.
199-200). Also the Pa.tisambhidaamagga gives five expositions, four
describing dependent origination in one life, the fifth being made to
present a special inductive generalization to extend what is observable
in this life (the fact that consciousness is always preceded by
consciousness, cf. this Ch. par. 83f.--i.e. that it always has a past
and is inconceivable without one) back beyond birth, and (since craving
and ignorance ensure its expected continuance) on after death. There
are, besides, various other, differing applications indicated by the
variant forms given in the Suttas themselves. 


#92115 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:30 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard


In a message dated 10/29/2008 9:42:39 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

TG, is  there just sound but no hearing, just sights but no seeing? There
is no  who or what that hears - there is just the hearing. There is no who or

what that sees - there is just the seeing. It seems to me that you think
that if there is activity, it must be the activity OF some actor.

...............................................

TG:  Nope.  Not to beat a dead horse, but this isn't what I'm  saying.  What
I'm saying is particular to the endings of the words  "experiencING" and
"experiencED."


An "experience" is an activity.  It is NOT necessarily an  activity involving
an "actor," "entity," or "self."  However,  "experiencING" means there must
be a "subject" that is the "actee" of that  experience.  This implies a self or
entity that is "experiencING."   Same with "experiencED."


.............................................................................


.  There are just happenings. Seeing and hearing and thinking etc
are all  impersonal events that happen. The general term for these activities
is  'experiencing'is

....................................................................


TG:  I agree with all this and I think we are in agreement in  principle
about this.  My point is simply about the endings "ING and ED"  attached to
"experienc."  I hope I've made it clear now...cause this is my  last attempt. 
LOL
From what you wrote below, it seems you  don't have any idea what I'm taking
about so far.  :-/


If your sickness germs are about to jump out of your body now, I don't know
what they're waiting for.   LOL


TG OUT



Are  you truly saying there is no seeing, no hearing and no
thinking? It seems  to me that you are saying that as soon as one accepts
mental activities,  one has accepted self-view.
.....................................................

TG:  No no no.


.......................................................


But  that just ain't so! No-self
doesn't imply no-mind. The Buddha wasn't the  teacher of no-self by being a
materialist.
........................................................


TG:  I don't know what this means or what its referring to.  But  please
don't explain.  LOL   Anyway, I hope you catch my drift  from what I wrote
above.



#92116 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:40 pm 
Subject: Re: TYPO Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard


In a message dated 10/29/2008 9:45:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

The  last word of the first sentence should have been 'experience'The  la
'experiencing''



..............................................


TG:  Maybe you're catching my drift?  I think to be impersonal  and
objective, it is better to use the word 'experience' instead of experiencing  or
experienced.  The latter two ending with (ING or ED ) imbue a subjective
slant...albeit in some cases, just slightly.



TG OUT


#92117 From: "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:31 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  kenhowardau 
  Hi Phil,

Thanks for your  reply. I will hang in with the series as advised.

----------------
Ph: > try to stay open and read and
reflect and just maybe something will sink in. For example, you once
said that you couldn't understand the point of reflecting on illness,
old age, death and separation from the loved ones the way the Buddha
urges us all to do, "it would be a downer", you said, or words to that
effect. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
-----------------

Steady on Phil, I am hardly likely to describe anything recommended
by the Buddha as a "downer." :-) The point I was making was that the
Buddha did not recommend the contemplation of conventional truths.
(And this is perhaps where I am going to be corrected.)

-------------------------
Ph: > Wow! You are *really* missing a
hugely important point there, Ken, if that is indeed the way you see
those recollections.
-------------------------

Be honest, Phil, conventional truths such as 'I am going to die' 'my
wife is going to die' 'my dear little children are going to die
(possibly before I do)' are NOT CALMING!

On the other hand, if there was insight into the momentary arising
and falling-away of the five khandhas the situation would be very
different. The conventional idea of death would be seen as ludicrous.
Whose death would that be? The terms 'myself' 'my wife' 'my children'
are only conventional designations!  There are really only dhammas!

So, for an arahant, the contemplation of conventional death would be
no more significant than the contemplation of anything else: walking,
talking, eating, dying . . . are all ultimately the same.

Ken H 


#92118 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:10 am 
Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 3.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

Nåmas, mental phenomena, and rúpas, physical phenomena, are ultimate
realities, paramattha dhammas. They are different from concepts and
ideas. They can be directly experienced, one at a time, when they
appear through their appropriate doorways. Seeing, for example, is a
reality in the ultimate sense. It can be experienced by everybody who
has eyesense; it has its own unchangeable characteristic and there is
no need to name it “seeing” in order to experience it. It is real for
everybody. Anger is a reality; it has its own unchangeable
characteristic and it can be experienced by everybody when it
appears, without the need to name it anger. Heat is a reality; it has
its own unchangeable characteristic and it can be experienced when it
appears through the bodysense without the need to name it “heat”.
Seeing, anger or heat are not concepts, we do not have to use any
names in order to know them; they can be experienced when they
appear, one at a time. Realities have each their own characteristic,
their own function and their own manifestation, they are the same to
all people. Paramattha dhammas are true for everybody and they can be
directly experienced through one of the senses and through the mind-
door.

In the beginning it is difficult to know the difference between
concepts (conventional truth) and realities (ultimate truth). When
we, for example, look at  a flower and we like it, what are the
realities? Usually we are only interested in the people and things we
perceive, in concepts, and we are ignorant of realities. When we like
a flower, there is pleasant feeling, but there are also other
realities besides pleasant feeling. It seems that seeing and thinking
of a flower with pleasure occur at the same time but this is not so.
Seeing experiences visible object, not a flower. We don’t have to
call what is visible “visible object” or “colour”, we don’t have to
give it any name, but there is a reality that can be experienced
through the eyesense. We can verify the truth at this moment, while
there is seeing. This will lead to more understanding of what seeing
is and to detachment from the idea of a self. Seeing is different
from thinking of something, but if there were no seeing we could not
think of things and people. Thinking is conditioned by seeing. There
are different nåmas which each perform their own function and which
are not self.

******

Nina.


#92119 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:15 am 
Subject: Survey Quote  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

All conditioned dhammas are merely the world which is void, void of
what one takes for self, for a being or for a person.
   It is important to consider whether one is ready to give up the
idea of being, person or self, or not yet. At this moment there is no
self, but is one ready to become detached from the world? First of
all, one should clearly know that there is no self, being or person,
so that one can become detached from the world and be liberated from it.
Some people cannot bear the truth that there is no self who is
seeing, hearing or experiencing the other sense objects. They cannot
accept it that there are in the absolute sense no relatives and
friends, no possessions, no things they could enjoy. Usually, people
do not believe that they should be liberated from the world. In order
to abandon the clinging to the view of self or mine, one should
develop the paññå which knows all realities which appear as they
really are. Then one will truly know the world which consists of
these realities.
It is not easy to know the world as it really is. Those who have
learnt the truth about the world the Buddha realized himself by his
enlightenment and taught to others, should carefully consider what
they have learnt and apply it in their daily life. They should
continue to develop paññå so that it can become keener and know the
characteristics of realities which constitute the world as they
really are. We should know the world at this very moment, not at
another time. We should know the world when there is seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, experiencing tangible object or thinking, at this
very moment. We should listen to the Dhamma and study it, so that
there can be awareness, investigation and understanding of the
characteristics of realities appearing through the six doors. This is
the only way that paññå can develop and know the world which arises
and falls away now.

*******
Nina.


#92120 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:39 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  philofillet 
  >
> -------------------------
> Ph: > Wow! You are *really* missing a
> hugely important point there, Ken, if that is indeed the way you see
> those recollections.
> -------------------------
>
> Be honest, Phil, conventional truths such as 'I am going to
die' 'my
> wife is going to die' 'my dear little children are going to die
> (possibly before I do)' are NOT CALMING!
>
> On the other hand, if there was insight into the momentary arising
> and falling-away of the five khandhas the situation would be very
> different. The conventional idea of death would be seen as
ludicrous.
> Whose death would that be? The terms 'myself' 'my wife' 'my
children'
> are only conventional designations!  There are really only dhammas!
>
> So, for an arahant, the contemplation of conventional death would
be
> no more significant than the contemplation of anything else:
walking,
> talking, eating, dying . . . are all ultimately the same.


    Yes, OK, I see what you mean. But the thing is we don't have that
kind of understanding. I think we have to accept that until there is
Ariyan understanding of dhammas, people, for example, do exist. I
just want to stress that we can't get rid of wrong view (if it is
indeed wrong view to believe that people exist, I'm not sure of that)
by adopting it as our own! We have to go with the understanding we
have! And work our way through it. But I certainly see what you mean
about how that kind of insight would be utterly liberating for the
Ariyan, of course. For us, I think saying "there are only nama and
rupa, no people" is a kind of...I can't explain it. I've called
it "finding comfort in deep teachings" before, it is a kind of
escapism or something. I certainly love studying Abhidhamma, it is so
pleasant to read about those deep levels of understanding!

    OK, I'll drop it there and try to shut up for a couple of days.
I've been posting too much again.

   Oh, and the calming aspect of those recollections is the 5th one,
that we are heirs to our kamma. Of course it is not calming if we
have been behaving very badly, not calming at all! If we have sorted
out our behaviour, we can find some encouragement in that 5th
recollection, although of course we remember that it can be a
patisandhi citta from some previous life that decides our rebirth no
matter how diligent we have been about behaving morally in this one.
But we feel encougaed that we have done our best to improve the odds
at least and haven't wasted this rare human birth.

   metta,
   phil

  metta,
  phil 


#92121 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:40 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What should one DO? was Sri Lanka Revisited.  nilovg 
  Hi Phil,
Op 30-okt-2008, om 0:47 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven:

> When A.S suddenly (suddenly enough for
> you to say "this is new!" in a very intrigued way) says it is the
> latter rather than the former, I think it is a very important point.
>
> On the other hand, I am appreciating that there are moments of being
> aware of very momentary mental states or maybe phenomena, even if they
> do not arise and fall away billions of times a second, and that
> awareness on these is valuable whatever they are. But for the sake
> of "pariyatta" I will insist on learning more about this nimitta and
> why it suddenly became more emphasized in A.S talks.
-------
N: Not so sudden when one reviews old talks where she mentioned
nimitta, but we ourselves had not paid attention.
Why the importance of nimitta? It helps us to see that realities
arise and fall away extremely fast. They are gone before we realise
it. We should not mislead ourselves into thinking that we can catch
them. It is an important foundation knowledge.
One may think: what to do to be aware of nimitta? Now I quote
something I heard this morning, when someone had a question: what to
do? This was not about nimitta but anyway it was about what to do to
have more understanding.
Someone said: he is tasting and just knows the flavour, but does not
know it as rupa. What should he DO?
<Awareness is not a matter of doing something so that one
understands. It is pa~n~naa that understands realities in the right
way as nama or as rupa. No need to worry about tasting and not
knowing that flavour is rupa.
Sati is aware of ultimate realities, and before we did not know what
they are. At each moment there are ultimate realities. There can be a
beginning of understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupa.
Before one could only say the words: this is nama, this is rupa. But
there can be more understanding, little by little. Most people do not
want to wait, they have no patience. They want to do something else,
like samatha. But then there is not sacca ~naa.na, the first phase of
understanding, that is firm understanding of the right Path. The way
to go is very far, but it is the sure way.
  From the beginning there should be detachment, that is, letting go
of desire, wanting to know.
In the suttas the Buddha taught often about seeing, visible object,
hearing, sound. Why? In order that we would understand these realities.>

N:As to detachment from the beginning: this is letting go of the idea
of: I want to understand, I will do this or that to have more
understanding. It is clinging to the idea of having more
understanding. That is why people want to have a calm, clear mind
first, believing that only thus there can be more understanding. But
it is still my calm, clear mind. Pa~n~naa can detect all such moments.
------
Nina.




#92122 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu0@...> 
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:34 pm 
Subject: Neither static substance, nor mental illusion!  bhikkhu0 
  Friends:

   Profound & Wisely Ballanced Ontology:

Buddha once explained existence as a chain of dependent emergence:

Some recluses & priests declare these excessively speculative views:
'Everything Exists'; which is the one extreme (Sarvastavadin Eternalism).
Other recluses & priests declare a just as hypothetical opposite extreme
view: 'Everything does Not Exist' (Sunyatavadin Annihilationism).
Avoiding both these extremes the Well-Gone-Beyond Buddha teaches
this Dhamma from the Middle:

When this is present, that also exists.
When this emerges, that also arises.
When this is absent, that neither exists.
When this ceases, that also vanishes.

From ignorance arises mental construction.
From mental construction arises consciousness.
From consciousness arises naming-&-forming.
From name-&-form arises the six senses.
From the six senses arises contact.
From contact arises feeling.
From feeling arises craving.
From craving arises clinging.
From clinging arises becoming.
From becoming arises birth.
From birth arises ageing, decay, sickness & death.
From ageing, decay & death arises Suffering!
This is the origin of this entire mass of Pain...
When ignorance ceases, mental construction stops.
When mental construction ceases, consciousness stops.
When consciousness ceases, naming-&-forming stops.
When name-&-form ceases, the six senses stops.
When the six senses ceases, contact stops.
When contact ceases, feeling stops.
When feeling ceases, craving stops.
When craving ceases, clinging stops.
When clinging ceases, becoming stops.
When becoming ceases, birth stops.
When birth ceases, ageing, decay, & death stops...
When ageing, decay & death ceases, Suffering stops!
This is the Disappearance of this entire mass of Pain...
This - only this supremely stilled silence - is Nibb�na!


<...>
Have a nice day!


  Friendship is the Greatest *
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-)
  ... 


#92123 From: Alberto Spera <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:13 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta  sprlrt 
  correction to my previous post): Taruna/weak vipassana nana are the
first three stages, including the sammasana/by group

What is atta then? A common misconception, which I shared as well until
listening to KS audios repeatingly, is to restrict atta as referring to
a self, sakkaya, while it has a much wider meaning.
Anything we 'see' is atta, anything we 'hear' is atta, anything we
'smell' is attta, anithing we 'taste' is atta, anything we 'touch' or
'feel' through the body is atta. I enclosed the 5 doors' functions in
quotes because actually the eyes don't see a table, the ears don't hear
a musical note, the nose doesn't smell a perfume, the tongue doesn't
taste pizza and the body doesn't touch the cushion when
sitting or feels hot in summer.
Pasada rupa cannot be seen or touched, eye-sense, ear-sense, nose-sense,
tongue-sense and body-sense can be known through the sixth door only,
the mind-door.  These rupas are produced by kamma, and they are the
vatthu/place of origin of vipaka cittas, the results of kusala or
akusala kamma.
The 7 visaya are the only rupa that can come into contact with the
pasada rupa, in other word they are the only object/arammana that vipaka
cittas can have.
And all the other cittas (up to 16) & cetasika in a 5 sense door
vithi/process experience exactly the same visaya rupa, which is a
paramattha dhamma, not a table, a musical note, a perfume, pizza, the
cushion or hot weather.
That comes soon after, when the sixth door, the mind door, processes
start to spin.
So I think that saying that we think a table would be closer to truth
than saying than we see one.

Alberto



#92124 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:21 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

In relation to:

TG: "Regarding  'experiencer'...do you agree that 'Dhammas' are not
'experiencers' either?"

Scott:  There is, in my opinion, no experiencer.  I think that each
dhamma - each reality or phenomenon - although having its
characteristic, is not a little homunculus and does not 'have'
experience but, as I think you say, 'is' experience.  I think that the
notion of 'characteristic' only refers to the particular 'flavour'
with which experience in any given moment is saturated.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92125 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:39 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:A get-together with Jessica  sarahprocter... 
  Dear Jessica, (& Nina)

Thank you so much for adding your own helpful impressions and reflections and
also for your kind words. I'm also delighted to have a friend in Hong Kong with
such a keen interest in the Dhamma as yourself and look forward to our next
meeting with Eric too! Thank you also for adding the further interesting details
about your background and long retreats in Myanmar. If you're in Bangkok at the
same time as us, I'd like you to meet Han, our 'senior' Burmese member here.

Thank you also for kindly putting your smiling face into the DSG album. A nice
pic!

You mentioned that you were interested in studying more on the Conditions and I
mentioned Nina's book on them. This can be found here:
http://www.zolag.co.uk/ebook.html

I also recommend U Narada's "Guide to Conditional Relations", published by the
Pali Text Society.

Nina, you mentioned you and Lodewijk might also join us in Bangkok in February.
On the dates I mentioned to Jessica, discussions have already been planned,
mostly in the afternoons. Jessica asked if you'd be coming, saying she'd like to
meet you, so I hope you're both able to be in Bangkok during that time (and
anyone else, of course). That would be lovely. We can coordinate off-list.

Metta,

Sarah


--- On Thu, 30/10/08, Jessica Mui <jessicamui@...> wrote:
>Dear Sarah and friends,
 
>Thank you very much for writing the notes to capture our meeting yesterday.
Sarah did capture all the important things that we discussed.
 
>Here, I'd like to add my impression about the meeting. First of all, it was my
great pleasure and pleasant surprise that I can meet with someone in Hong Kong
to discuss Dhamma for so long non-stop. 


#92126 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:19 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

Mahaasakuludaayisutta.m

"...'This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four
great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of
boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn
and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this
consciousness of mine is supported by and bound up with it'..."

"...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa,
yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti - 'aya.m kho me
caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhavo odanakummaasuupacayo
aniccucchaadanaparimaddanabhedanaviddha.msanadhammo; ida~nca pana me
vi~n~naa.na.m ettha sita.m ettha pa.tibaddha.m'..."

Scott: This sutta is used to support the idea that it is a 'unit'
which experiences.  It seems that the phrase 'this consciousness of
mine is supported by and bound up with it' (vi~n~naa.na.m ettha sita.m
ettha pa.tibaddha.m) is most particularly salient.  'Supported by' is
'sita.m' and 'bound up with' is 'pa.tibaddha.m'.  These are given in
the PTS PED as:

"Ettha (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in
this case, in this matter'..."

"Sita...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.) reclining, resting,
depending on, attached, clinging to..."

"Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted to or
by, dependent on..."

Scott: It would seem, given the term 'support', that there is emphasis
on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.m) is 'now bound up, now resting or
depending on' and 'now bound to and dependent on' this 'material form'
(kaayo ruupii) - consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.m) is bound up with and
depends on 'material form' (kaayo ruupii).

This would suggest that without a material base, an object, and
mentality, there can be no 'experience'.  Adding to this that
'contact' (phassa-cetasika) facilitates this (phassa paccayaa vedanaa,
for example) - that phassa is the meeting or intercourse (sangati
phasso) of, say, the eye (cakkhu), visible object (ruupaa), and seeing
consciousness (cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na).  This (or something like this but
more correctly stated) is, as you say Dhamma 101.

But the view presented that it is the 'unit' that 'experiences' is
what I'm questioning.  You note I've misunderstood the view.  While
the confluence of these three elements is necessary, it remains that
it is still only cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na - that which is naama - is 'the
experience' of which we speak.  To say that the presence of visible
object (ruupa) and eye-base (ruupa) are necessary conditions for
experience, while true, is not to misunderstand that ruupa itself 'is
experience'.  Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92127 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:55 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiences vs Experiencing  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, TG -

In a message dated 10/30/2008 12:31:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

Hi  Howard


In a message dated 10/29/2008 9:42:39 P.M. Mountain Daylight  Time,
upasaka@... writes:

TG, is  there just sound  but no hearing, just sights but no seeing? There
is no  who or what  that hears - there is just the hearing. There is no who
or

what that  sees - there is just the seeing. It seems to me that you think
that  if there is activity, it must be the activity OF some actor.

...............................................

TG:   Nope.  Not to beat a dead horse, but this isn't what I'm   saying.
What
I'm saying is particular to the endings of the  words  "experiencING" and
"experiencED."


An  "experience" is an activity.  It is NOT necessarily an  activity
involving
an "actor," "entity," or "self."  However,   "experiencING" means there must
be a "subject" that is the "actee" of  that  experience.  This implies a self
or
entity that is  "experiencING."   Same with "experiencED."
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     We're just playing with language here, TG. The word  'experience' is
ambiguous. You are using it as an activity, which is one  meaning. I am using it
as the content of the mental activity that I call  'experiencing'. When someone
speaks of "an experience" it can mean the event or  the content. I mean the
content. When you say that the word 'experiencing'  implies an experiencer,
that may be true for you (i.e., your language habit) but  it is not so for me.
For me, hearing doesn't imply a hearer, feeling a  sensation as pleasant doesn't
imply an enjoyer, aversion towards a flavor  doesn't imply a hater, fearing
doesn't imply some "one" who is afraid, and  knowing doesn't imply a knower.
Hearing, feeling, disliking, fearing, and  knowing are events that occur - they
are activities, and they require no agent.  Though it may be raining, there is
no rainer.
     TG, do hearing, feeling, disliking, fearing, and  knowing not occur? I
say they do. I also say that there is no phenomenon that is  hearer, feeler,
disliker, fearer, or knower. When I say "I hear a sound,"   that is merely a
conventional (and for-practical-purposes  unavoidable) way of saying that the
hearing of a sound is occuring within the  mind stream I call "me" - that is,
the
sound (sensation) is present as  current object within the stream of
consciousness I call "me." As I see it,  it is rather silly to ban verbs from
our
vocabulary for fear of positing an  agent for the activities referred to by the
verbs. Some folks have actually  proposed banning nouns for fear of reification.
I propose banning no parts of  speech, but just keeping one's thinking
straight.
-----------------------------------------------------





.............................................................................


.   There are just happenings. Seeing and hearing and thinking etc
are  all  impersonal events that happen. The general term for these
activities
is   'experiencing'is

....................................................................


TG:   I agree with all this and I think we are in agreement in  principle
about this.  My point is simply about the endings "ING and ED"   attached to
"experienc."  I hope I've made it clear now...cause this  is my  last
attempt.  LOL
From what you wrote below,  it seems you  don't have any idea what I'm taking
about so far.   :-/
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     For me, the "ing" suffix denotes activity,  whereas, 'experience' is
nominal in intent.
-------------------------------------------




If your sickness germs are about to jump out of your body  now, I don't know
what they're waiting for.    LOL
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
     They're happily germing! LOLOL!
-----------------------------------------




TG OUT



Are  you truly saying there is  no seeing, no hearing and no
thinking? It seems  to me that you are  saying that as soon as one accepts
mental activities,  one has  accepted self-view.
.....................................................

TG:  No  no  no.


.......................................................


But   that just ain't so! No-self
doesn't imply no-mind. The Buddha wasn't  the  teacher of no-self by being a
materialist.
........................................................


TG:   I don't know what this means or what its referring to.  But  please
don't explain.  LOL   Anyway, I hope you catch my  drift  from what I wrote
above.


TG OUT
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Yes. I think our differences are linguistic and not  substantive.
--------------------------------------------




With metta,
Howard


#92128 From: "connie" <nichicon@hotmail.com> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:01 am 
Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,309, 310  nichiconn 
  re: ##92113-92114

Path of Purity, p.705

(It should fittingly be known: -)

And because there are four methods as to the meaning [585] namely, the method of
sameness, of difference, of non-occupation, of the nature of being such,
therefore according to the different methods also this wheel of becoming should
fittingly be known.

Of these, the method of sameness is the unbroken continuity, as in "Conditioned
by ignorance activities come to pass, conditoned by activities consciousness
comes to pass" like the growth of a tree from a seed through sprouts and so on.
He who sees it rightly, knowing it to be an unbroken series of cause and effect,
abandons the heresy of annihilation; seeing it wrongly by grasping the sameness
of the unbroken series proceeding by way of cause and effect, he clings to the
heresy of eternalism.


#92129 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:34 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/30/2008 5:21:54 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  There is, in my opinion, no experiencer. I think that each
dhamma - each  reality or phenomenon - although having its
characteristic, is not a little  homunculus and does not 'have'
experience but, as I think you say, 'is'  experience. I think that the
notion of 'characteristic' only refers to the  particular 'flavour'
with which experience in any given moment is  saturated.

Sincerely,

Scott.



...................................................

Hi Scott


That's good Scott.  The idea of "each dhamma," as if they were  individuals,
is still a stretch for me.  But the rest of this paragraph is  expressed very
much as I see it.


TG OUT


#92130 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:00 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott


In a message dated 10/30/2008 6:20:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  TG,

Regarding:

MahaasakuludaayisutMaha

"...'This  body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four
great elements,  procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of
boiled rice and  porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn
and rubbed away, to  dissolution and disintegration, and this
consciousness of mine is supported  by and bound up with it'..."

"...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa  saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa,
yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti -  'aya.m kho me
caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhacaatumahaabhuutiko maataapc
aniccucchaadanaparianiccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanapari<W
vi~n~naa.na.vi~n~naa.na.<WBR>m ettha sita.m etthavi~n~n

Scott: This sutta is used to support the idea  that it is a 'unit'
which experiences. It seems that the phrase 'this  consciousness of
mine is supported by and bound up with it'  (vi~n~naa.na.mine is suppor
ettha pa.tibaddha.ettha pa.tibaddha.<WBR>m) is most  particularly sal
'sita.m' and 'bound up with' is  'pa.tibaddha.'sita.m' and 'bound up
the PTS PED as:

"Ettha  (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in
this  case, in this matter'..."

"Sita...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.)  reclining, resting,
depending on, attached, clinging  to..."

"Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted  to or
by, dependent on..."

Scott: It would seem, given the term  'support', that there is emphasis
on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.<WBR>
depending on' and 'now bound to and  dependent on' this 'material form'
(kaayo ruupii) - consciousness  (vi~n~naa.na.(kaayo ruupii) - consci
depends on 'material form' (kaayo  ruupii).

.....................................................


TG:  This is great scholarship Scott.  I really appreciate this  effort.  I'm
going to actually save this post.



......................................................





This would suggest that without a material base, an object,  and
mentality, there can be no 'experience'mentality, there can be n
'contact' (phassa-cetasika) facilitates this (phassa paccayaa  vedanaa,
for example) - that phassa is the meeting or intercourse  (sangati
phasso) of, say, the eye (cakkhu), visible object (ruupaa), and  seeing
consciousness (cakkhu-vi~n~consciousness (cakkhu-vi~n~<WBR>naa.na). This
more correctly stated) is, as you say Dhamma  101.

.................................................................


TG:  Yea, its Damma 101 or Dhamma 901 depending on how deeply it is  "seen."


..............................................................





But the view presented that it is the 'unit' that 'experiences'  is
what I'm questioning. You note I've misunderstood the view. While
the  confluence of these three elements is necessary, it remains that
it is  still only cakkhu-vi~n~it is  still only cakkhu-vi~n~<WBR>naa.
experience' of which we speak. To say that the presence of  visible
object (ruupa) and eye-base (ruupa) are necessary conditions  for
experience, while true, is not to misunderstand that ruupa itself  'is
experience'. Ruupa is the reality that does not experience  anything.

.............................................................


TG:  I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say  "Ruupa is
the reality that does not experience anything."


When I spoke of a "unit," is was just the unit of sense object, sense base,
and corresponding consciousness that I was referring to.  I think you know
that now.


If, for example, visual consciousness cannot see without light, then light
is "part" of seeing.  If it cannot see without eye, then "eye" is part of
seeing.  Visual consciousness is the "outgrowth ability" to see...in  dependence
on a "dyad" and a functioning mind.  Visual consciousness  is not a separate
nama.  It is the meeting of these three things.  The  "separation" is merely for
purposes of analysis.


IMO, it is not seemly to fully isolate phenomena into "individual units"  and
say...this only does that, that only does this.  Phenomena are  conditionally
relative and, in fact, none have "their own"  characteristic.  Though, for
purposes of analysis, we can and do identify  qualities in order to understand
conditional processes.


TG OUT



#92131 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:38 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Dear Kan H,
Op 30-okt-2008, om 0:52 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven:

> We are currently reading stories about wise people who were brave and
> didn't cry in times of great loss. I see those stories as teaching
> panna to know the falling-away of momentary namas and rupas.
>
> If there are any Abhidhamma students who think I am overlooking an
> aspect of the Buddha's actual teaching I would be glad to hear from
> them.
----------
N: Even if one does not directly realize the arising and falling away
of cittas, still, the thinking in the right way about paramattha
dhammas helps. It helps to know that the dying citta is succeeded by
the rebirth citta.
The stories in the Jaataka and other stories are deep, and we should
try to grasp the deep meaning, not just staying at the level of
conventional truth. Everybody can think: death is sure to come any
time. That way of thinking cannot change our life.
When citta that thinks of life, of the world, falls away, the world
with all the people in it is no more. Life is just in one moment, and
even intellectual understanding of this fact leads to more
understanding of realities.
So, you are not overlooking the essence of the teaching but
expressing it all the time.
Nina.



#92132 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:02 pm 
Subject: Re: Buddha's Speech  truth_aerator 
  Dear KenH and all,


> "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know there are DSG members from both camps (meditators and non-
> meditators) who believe the Buddha sometimes taught conventional
> truths. I am not one of them, and I don't believe I am missing out
>on anything by not being one of them.

I believe that your are making an issue where there isn't one. Buddha
taught stress and its cessation. Whether it is precise or vague,
technical or poetic, long or short, whatever, his teachings are aimed
toward Nibbana.

Buddha has said himself:

"He words things by means of what is said in the world but without
grasping at it."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.074.than.html

"these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the
world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the
Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html#t-10

In MN139 the Buddha has said not to "over ride the common usage" of
words.


Best wishes, 



#92133 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:42 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:30:28 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

And  furthermore, since you bring it up again, this notion that 'seeing
sees  conditions' is a view entirely of your own creation. What is
'seeing'? What  are 'conditions' that they can be 'seen'? You are
still referring to  entities, their function, and objects while wanting
to deny there are any  of these at all. Not consistent in any way.



......................................

Hi Scott


Well, I hate to get into disagreement when we have had 24 hours of
"agreeableness."


Seeing is just seeing.  There is nothing else in samsara other than
conditions.  So what else could possibly be seen other than  conditions.  The
seeing
"itself" being a condition.  Where do you see  "entities" in this statement?


TG


#92134 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:44 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:19:31 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  This is no better, TG. What's a 'system'?



.......................................

Hi Scott


The 12 Fold Chain is a "system" for one.


TG OUT



#92135 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:45 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear  TG,

TG:  "This is great scholarship Scott.  I really appreciate this
effort.  I'm going to actually save this post."

Scott: Thank you, TG, very kind of you.

TG:  "Yea, its Damma 101 or Dhamma 901 depending on how deeply it is
'seen.'"

Scott: I was thinking that as I was writing the phrase.

TG:  "I don't think there is any place in the Suttas that will say
'Ruupa is the reality that does not experience anything.'"

Scott: I'll look into this one later...

TG: "...If, for example, visual consciousness cannot see without
light, then light is 'part' of seeing.  If it cannot see without eye,
then 'eye' is part of seeing.  Visual consciousness is the 'outgrowth
ability' to see...in  dependence on a "dyad" and a functioning mind.
Visual consciousness  is not a separate nama.  It is the meeting of
these three things.  The  'separation' is merely for purposes of
analysis."

Scott: If what is meant by 'outgrowth ability' - which is a term I'm
familiar with only nominally from the neurobiology literature - is
that since experience known as 'seeing' emerges out of this confluence
of object, base and consciousness, it is therefore without 'ultimate
reality', then I'll disagree.

TG: "IMO, it is not seemly to fully isolate phenomena into 'individual
units' and say...this only does that, that only does this.  Phenomena
are  conditionally relative and, in fact, none have 'their own'
characteristic.  Though, for purposes of analysis, we can and do
identify  qualities in order to understand conditional processes."

Scott: Cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na is differentiated, I think, not merely for
didactic or analytic purposes, but because such an element arises in
actuality.  That visual consciousness 'depends on' or 'is conditioned
by' visible object and eye-base does not, to me, mean that visual
consciousness is a paradoxically non-existent emergent property.

The use of the notion of 'conditionally relative phenomena' is not the
same sort of conditionality as set out in the Pa.t.thaana.  Again,
these elements are not parsed for the purpose of analysis.  I would
agree that these elements arise and fall away with such rapidity and
are so complex as to function (due to the consascence of citta and
cetasika, for example), as to appear as if there is a seamlessness to
the process over time.  The view does not accord with the Abhidhamma
view of the citta-viithi, as you know.

Noting that phenomena are 'conditionally relative' likely goes beyond
the bounds of Theravaada Abhidhamma.  From this, the view then
understands this to define 'voidness' - but again a 'voidness' which
departs from the standard Theravaadan meaning of the word and accords
more with a later Mahayana version of the term - if I am
following.  In other words, this is meant to suggest that none of the
elements of, say, seeing, are distinguishable and hence cannot exist
separately.  Here, then, one can see the subtle admixture of modern
scientific theories and Dhamma, which, for an annoying purist like me,
is not on at all.

The Pa.t.thaana does not describe conditionality along the lines of
certain modern theories found in physics.  Rather, elements are
considered to have a separate reality and to retain this separate
reality even when 'brought together' by the forces of conditioning or
conditioned arising and falling away.

While the view is creative, I think its a stretch to say that it
reflects an orthodox Theravaada view of the Dhamma.  Or, in fact, that
its Dhamma at all.

I'd be interested in seeing more suttas which allegedly demonstrate
phenomenal conditional relativity.  I feel much more comfortable
disagreeing with the view at this point.  To me, it consists of a
'reading-back-into' a set of early texts of a meaning derived from
modern non-Dhamma sources.  This, then, becomes only a question of
hermeneutics.  I think the view goes well beyond a simple exegetical
analysis.  I see no more to do but disagree so far.

For me, I'm inclined to always side with the Abhidhamma exegesis, or
the Commentarial 'hermeneutic' view (as you might say) because
these, at least, are devoid of modern, non-Dhamma concepts to further
muddy the water.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92136 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:04 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott


In a message dated 10/30/2008 6:20:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  TG,

Regarding:

MahaasakuludaayisutMaha

"...'This  body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four
great elements,  procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of
boiled rice and  porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn
and rubbed away, to  dissolution and disintegration, and this
consciousness of mine is supported  by and bound up with it'..."

"...Puna capara.m, udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa  saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa,
yathaapa.tipannaa me saavakaa eva.m pajaananti -  'aya.m kho me
caatumahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhacaatumahaabhuutiko maataapc
aniccucchaadanaparianiccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanapaniccucchaadanapari<W
vi~n~naa.na.vi~n~naa.na.<WBR>m ettha sita.m etthavi~n~n

Scott: This sutta is used to support the idea  that it is a 'unit'
which experiences.


It  seems that the phrase 'this consciousness of
mine is supported by and bound  up with it' (vi~n~naa.na.mine is suppor
ettha pa.tibaddha.ettha pa.tibaddha.<WBR>m) is  most particularly sal
'sita.m' and 'bound up with'  is 'pa.tibaddha.'sita.m' and 'bound up
the PTS PED as:

"Ettha  (adv.)...here, in this place; also temporal 'now', & modal 'in
this  case, in this matter'..."

"Sita...1. (lit.) stuck in or to 2...(fig.)  reclining, resting,
depending on, attached, clinging  to..."

"Pa.tibaddha (adj.)...bound to, in fetters or bonds, attracted  to or
by, dependent on..."

Scott: It would seem, given the term  'support', that there is emphasis
on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.on how consciousness (vi~n~naa.na.<WBR>
depending on' and 'now bound to and  dependent on' this 'material form'
(kaayo ruupii) - consciousness  (vi~n~naa.na.(kaayo ruupii) - consci
depends on 'material form' (kaayo  ruupii).

This would suggest that without a material base, an object,  and
mentality, there can be no 'experience'me

................................................................


TG:  This passage is not quite dealing with that.  It is saying  that
consciousness is supported by and bound up with the Four Great  Elements.  This
passage can easily be looked at to make a correlation  between the
forces/conditions that support the body and support consciousness  as being the
same
fundamental forces/conditions...i.e., the Four Great  Elements.  In fact, it
directly
says as much.    That's  enough for now.


TG OUT



#92137 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:21 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

Me: "And  furthermore, since you bring it up again, this notion that
'seeing sees conditions' is a view entirely of your own creation. What
is 'seeing'? What  are 'conditions' that they can be 'seen'? You are
still referring to  entities, their function, and objects while
wanting to deny there are any  of these at all. Not consistent in any
way."

TG: "Well, I hate to get into disagreement when we have had 24 hours
of 'agreeableness.'"

Scott: Don't worry, I enjoy the chance to study the Dhamma.

TG: "Seeing is just seeing.  There is nothing else in samsara other
than conditions.  So what else could possibly be seen other than
conditions.  The seeing 'itself' being a condition.  Where do you see
'entities' in this statement?"

Scott:  This statement, TG, is the problem:

'There is nothing else in samsara other than conditions.'

It is one entirely of your own creation.  I realise you keep repeating
it, and wanting the mere repetition to serve as proof of its validity,
but it finds no support in the Dhamma as I understand it.  I'm sorry,
but no matter how often you reassert this position, it remains an
idiosyncratic view.

You refer to something called 'seeing' - an entity - but then posit
that 'seeing' is a 'condition' - another entity.  You also suggest
that the only things 'seeing' can 'see' are 'conditions'.  This is now
'seeing sees seeing' or 'conditions see conditions' or some other such
confusing statement.  'Seeing' is a conceptual entity as you set it out.

I view seeing is a characteristic of a certain type of consciousness
which can serve as a conditioning element or a conditioned element
depending on the situation.  This is still with the caveat that there
is no 'seer' - just seeing.  See? ;-)

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92138 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:44 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Scott (and TG) -

In a message dated 10/30/2008 11:21:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  This statement, TG, is the problem:

'There is  nothing else in samsara other than conditions.'

It is one entirely of  your own creation.  I realise you keep repeating
it, and wanting the  mere repetition to serve as proof of its validity,
but it finds no support  in the Dhamma as I understand it.  I'm sorry,
but no matter how often  you reassert this position, it remains an
idiosyncratic  view.
=============================
     One meaning of 'sankhara' is any conditioned  dhamma. Among the
paramattha dhammas, there are exactly the sankhara (a.k.a.,  sankhata dhammas),
and
nibbana, the sole asankhata dhamma. Is it not the case  that every conditioned
dhamma is a condition for other dhammas? So, every  conditioned dhamma is a
condition; that is, every dhamma other than nibbana is a  condition.
     So, what is the problem in saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara
other than conditions.'? Indeed, every dhamma in the  world is a condition for
other dhammas, is it not? What exactly is it that you  object to in referring to
the worldly dhammas as conditions? I really don't  understand.

With metta,
Howard



#92139 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:28 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott


In a message dated 10/30/2008 8:06:36 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  Cakkhu-vi~n~Scott:  Cakkhu-vi~n~<WBR>naa.na is differentia
didactic  or analytic purposes, but because such an element arises in
actuality. That  visual consciousness 'depends on' or 'is conditioned
by' visible object and  eye-base does not, to me, mean that visual
consciousness is a paradoxically  non-existent emergent property.
......................................................


TG:  "A non-existent emergent property."  Humm.  That's a  bizarre notion
from my perspective.  This type of charge arises, IMO, due  to the apparent
inability to understand the implications of phenomena that are  conditionally
relative.  Phenomena don't not exist.  Nor do they exist  as "ultimate realities
with their own characteristics." They are "relativities"  which entails that
they do arise, but they don't arise as "their own"  thing.  This is why the
Buddha calls phenomena hollow, empty,  insubstantial, void, like a mirage, etc. 
He
NEVER calls them  "ultimate realities."  It seems with your diligent
scholarship, this should  be a point with great impact for you that would cause
some
'pause'  ... when the commentaries go overboard with a substantialist outlook.


.................................................................





The use of the notion of 'conditionally relative phenomena' is  not the
same sort of conditionality as set out in the Pa.t.thaana.
..........................................................

TG:  The Buddha demonstrates conditionality in all sorts of ways  throughout
the Suttas.  Through the Suttas, one can ascertain the breadth  of
conditionality ... that is only shown in a narrow style in the  Patthana.


In my view, the Buddha did not teach the Patthana, your view is up to  you.
So if the "conditionally relative phenomena" that I speak of is not  presented
in the Patthana, I could care very little.  I'll go by the Suttas
presentation.


...........................................................



Again,
these elements are not parsed for the purpose of analysis.

...........................................................

TG:  I disagree.  The Buddha said..."in whatever way it is  conceived, the
fact is ever other than that."  The teachings are ONLY for  purposes of
analysis, to point the way, they do not "state" actuality.   They are just a
"raft" to
get us to a destination.


...........................................................



I  would
agree that these elements arise and fall away with such rapidity  and
are so complex as to function (due to the consascence of citta  and
cetasika, for example), as to appear as if there is a seamlessness  to
the process over time. The view does not accord with the  Abhidhamma
view of the citta-viithi, as you know.

Noting that  phenomena are 'conditionally relative' likely goes beyond
the bounds of  Theravaada Abhidhamma. From this, the view then
understands this  to define 'voidness' - but again a 'voidness' which
departs from the  standard Theravaadan meaning of the word and accords
more with a later  Mahayana version of the term - if I am
following. In other words, this is  meant to suggest that none of the
elements of, say, seeing, are  distinguishable and hence cannot exist
separately.
...............................................................


TG:  I am not saying that "seeing" isn't distinguishable.  I am  saying it is
not a separate "ultimate reality with its own  characteristic."



......................................................................



Here,  then, one can see the subtle admixture of modern
scientific theories and  Dhamma, which, for an annoying purist like me,
is not on at  all.

......................................................................

TG:  Here's another example of you doing what you chastised me for  doing
yesterday.  Quote -- Scott: "Creating a straw man - a caricature of  another's
argument - and then
arguing against it, as is done above, isn't  such a great mode of
discussion."


You do it all the time.  LOL

.................................................................





The Pa.t.thaana does not describe conditionality along the  lines of
certain modern theories found in physics. Rather, elements  are
considered to have a separate reality and to retain this  separate
reality even when 'brought together' by the forces of conditioning  or
conditioned arising and falling away.

........................................................

TG:  Whether the Suttas, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, Modern Physics; I  don't
give a damn ... except in what they contain that can lead to a better
understanding of actuality and as a Guide to freedom from suffering.  I  don't
care
about following a tradition (which BTW is somewhat looked down on by  the
Buddha) or anything else.  It just so happens I find the best teaching  guide
available contained in the Suttas.  The next best teacher is nature  "itself." 
I
find those two will well correlate.  Anything after that  becomes increasingly
problematic.


............................................................




While the view is creative, I think its a stretch to say that  it
reflects an orthodox Theravaada view of the Dhamma. Or, in fact,  that
its Dhamma at all.
...............................................................

TG:  I consider "orthodox Theravada" to be the Suttas.  Anything  after that
becomes less orthodox.  There are all sorts of Theravadin  schools...with
varying beliefs.  I'm not sure what person or group is the  "official claimant"
of
what Orthodox Theravadin" is.  Maybe we could have a  boxing match among the
head monks and the winner take all?  Or, maybe we  could just defer to you and
settle it there.   ;-)


TG OUT


#92140 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:51 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott


In a message dated 10/30/2008 9:21:31 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

It is  one entirely of your own creation. I realise you keep repeating
it, and  wanting the mere repetition to serve as proof of its  validity,
............................................................

TG"  Now you're a mind reader?  Cool!  But, the idea hadn't  occurred to me.
Disappointing huh?   ;-)  But its a good  idea now you mention it.  Is it
like those who keep saying the Buddha  taught "ultimate realities with their own
characteristics" even though it never  appears in the Suttas?   LOL
Gee...they wouldn't be trying to  ram a non-valid premise down other folks
throat with
their continual repetition  would they?   That's a rhetorical.   ;-)


........................................................



but it finds no support in the Dhamma as I understand it.

..........................................................

TG:  That's no surprise.   ;-)


.............................................................




I'm  sorry,
but no matter how often you reassert this position, it remains  an
idiosyncratic view.

You refer to something called 'seeing' - an  entity

...........................................................

TG:  Seeing is an entity?  Are you trying to out orthodox the  orthodoxy?  I
don't know where you're coming from and like Three Dog Night  said -- "Don't
know what it is
I don't wanna see no more

.........................................................................



- but  then posit
that 'seeing' is a 'condition' - another entity.

.........................................................................

TG:  This isn't an example of repetition to try to make it come true  is it?
  ;-)


.............................................................................



You  also suggest
that the only things 'seeing' can 'see' are 'conditions'that the only thi
'seeing sees seeing' or 'conditions see conditions' or some  other such
confusing statement. 'Seeing' is a conceptual entity as you set  it out.

I view seeing is a characteristic of a certain type of  consciousness
which can serve as a conditioning element or a conditioned  element
depending on the situation. This is still with the caveat that  there
is no 'seer' - just seeing. See? ;-)
............................................................

TG:  Actually, I understand your statement above and agree with  it.  I would
use "quality" instead of characteristic, a minor point.   And I'm pretty sure
if you expanded it, we would further depart.


It appears to me that you may think that "words and word order" are the
actual expressions of what is real.  For IMO, what I'm saying is just a 
different
form of what your saying.  Though I suspect your "language form"  is designed
to support a contention of "ultimate realities with their own
characteristics."  You know...that vision unsupported by the Suttas.


TG OUT

#92141 From: "kenhowardau" <kenhowardau@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:24 pm 
Subject: Re: More on anatta  kenhowardau 
  Hi Alberto,

I am enjoying your posts very much.

--------
A: > What is atta then? A common misconception, which I shared as well
until listening to KS audios repeatingly, is to restrict atta as
referring to a self, sakkaya, while it has a much wider meaning.
Anything we 'see' is atta, anything we 'hear' is atta, anything we
--------

Brilliant! Most people think atta just means "eternal soul." As you go
on to explain it is actually everything we think we experience.

Ken H 


#92142 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:41 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  jonoabb 
  Hi Han

> Yes, the story I was referring to was Jaataka 354.

Below is the story in full (copied from a post of Christine's).

Thanks for the reminder.

Jon

"The Bodhisattva was a farmer in a former life as mentioned in the
Uraga Jataka. Rustic though he was, he practiced mindfulness on death
to perfection. He had trained himself to think every now and then
"Death can at any moment come to us." This is something on which the
majority of us refuse to do any thinking at all.

Not only did he make it a habit to think so, but he even saw to it
that all members of his household did the same.

One day while he was working with his son in the field, the latter
was stung by a snake and died on the spot. The father was not one bit
perturbed. He just carried the body to the foot of a tree, covered it
with a cloak, neither weeping nor lamenting, and resumed his plowing
unconcerned. Later he sent word home, through a passer-by, to send up
one parcel of food instead of two for the mid-day meal and to come
with perfumes and flowers.

When the message was received, his wife knew what it meant but she
too did not give way to expressions of grief; neither did her
daughter nor her daughter-in-law nor the maid-servant. As requested
they all went with perfumes and flowers to the field, and a most
simple cremation took place, with no one weeping.

Sakka the chief of gods came down to earth and proceeding to the
place where a body was burning upon a pile of firewood, inquired from
those standing around whether they were roasting the flesh of some
animal.

When they replied, "It is no enemy but our own son."
"Then he could not have been a son dear to you," said Sakka.
"He was a very dear son," replied the father.
"Then," asked Sakka, "why do you not weep?"

The father in reply uttered this stanza:

"Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past.
Even as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast.
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

Similar questions were asked from the dead son's mother who replied
thus:

"Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go.
Even as he came he went, what cause is here for woe?
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

"Sisters surely are loving to their brothers. Why do you not weep?"
asked Sakka of the dead man's sister. She replied:

"Though I should fast and weep, how would it profit me?
My kith and kin alas would more unhappy be.
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

Sakka then asked the dead man's wife why she did not weep. She
replied thus:

"As children cry in vain to grasp the moon above,
So mortals idly mourn the loss of those they love.
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

Lastly Sakka asked the maid-servant why she did not weep, especially
as she had stated that the master was never cruel to her but was most
considerate and kind and treated her like a foster child. This was
her reply:

"A broken pot of earth, ah, who can piece again?
So too, to mourn the dead is nought but labor vain.
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/41002 


#92143 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:31 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear Jon,

> Jon: Below is the story [Jaataka 354] in full (copied from a post of
Christine's).
Thanks for the reminder.
Jon

Han: Thank you very much, Jon.
I really appreciate it.

Respectfully,
Han 


#92144 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:40 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  jonoabb 
  Hi Howard & TG

> Here is the difference.  Scott says that  Nama is the reality that
> experiences.  I say Nama IS  experience.
> -----------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     And I say that nama is experiencING. ;-) But  basically, we
agree on
> this. Agent terminology should be avoided - it expresses  and leads
to atta-view.
> ------------------------------------------

You both feel that it's important to avoid terminology that connotes
self, and that the use of such terminology leads to wrong view.

I don't think this is an idea that appears in the texts.  Nor do I
see the Buddha avoiding conventional atta-sounding terminology ('I',
'self', etc).

If you are suggesting that wrong view can be avoided, or right view
developed, by careful choice of terminology I would disagree.  That's
a similar idea to the one that by being restrained in how we act we
can develop more kusala.  To my understanding of the teachings,
things are in fact the other way around, namely, if more kusala is
developed, one's conduct becomes purer.

So whole question of whether it's better to say "IS experience" or
"is experiencING" has no bearing on the development of the path, in
my view.

Jon 


#92145 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:35 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear Jon (James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Howard, Tep),

In Jaataka 354, I like best the mother’s reply:

"Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go.
Even as he came he went, what cause is here for woe?
No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."

Although it was the reply by the mother for her dead son, I think it is
applicable to other loved ones as well, like husband and wife. I came down to
Rangoon from Upper Burma to study medicine, and I moved into a friend’s house
which was next to my wife’s house. That was how we met. I entered into her
life without her invitation, and I will be leaving her without her permission or
without her asking me to leave. I think most of husbands and wives are chance
encounters. I think it is a part of kamma vipaaka. Because of past kamma we
meet, and when that kamma is exhausted we depart. So there is no point to be
grieved. We meet and we go away from one another in the endless journey of
samsara.

I agree with Nina that the person who stays behind suffers most (which was also
echoed by Howard). If I die first I will have my wife beside me holding my hand
when I die. But when she dies later I will not be near her. Of course, she will
have her children and grand-children near her, but it will not be the same.
That’s why in my selfish way, I want to die first. But with consideration for
her, I think it will be better if she goes first. But as I have said before,
nobody knows who will go first!

Respectfully,
Han 


#92146 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:05 am 
Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 5, no 4.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

When we look at a flower we take the flower for something which
lasts, but in reality there is no flower which lasts. When we pick it
there are different realities appearing through the bodysense;
hardness, for example, may appear. When we smell its scent, there is
only odour appearing through the nose. We are not used to knowing
different objects, one at a time, through different doorways, but
this is the only way to know the truth. Because of wrong view there
are always people and things in our life which seem to last. We take
the unreal for real, we are living in a dream.

We think of people and things. We should not avoid thinking of them,
but we can have less misunderstandings about realities and concepts.
Nåma and rúpa are not imaginary, they are real. We do not have to
name them nåma and rúpa in order to distinguish them from each other.

Do we know the difference between nåma and rúpa? We cling to an idea
of a unity of mind and body, we cling to an idea of “my body that is
alive”. But, when there is pain, what are the realities? It is not
rúpa which feels the pain but nåma. When we think of our body as a
corpse we can understand that it does not feel anything. But also the
body which is alive consists of rúpas which do not experience
anything. When we have an idea of a “whole” or a unity of mind and
body we cling to the concept of self. When we touch what we think is
our body, hardness or heat may appear, rúpas that are tangible
object. We touch objects all day long but we are usually absorbed in
thinking of concepts.

In the beginning it is very difficult to know one reality at a time.
One of our friends said that she could not help seeing figures all
day, she saw figures coming towards her. It seemed that she was
looking at a world full of people. We think that we see many
different things in a room: a table, a chair, and further away a
picture and a window, or the trees outside. However, there are not
all the time moments of defining what was seen, moments of paying
attention to shape and form. There must also be the experience of
what appears through the eyesense, visible object, otherwise we could
not think of concepts.

******

Nina.


#92147 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:08 am 
Subject: Series of Survey Quotes.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

The eyesense has been compared to an ocean which is so large that it
can never be satiated. We can see the colour of the moon, the sun and
the stars. Although they are infinitely far away, their colours can
contact the eyesense and then they are experienced by the víthi-
cittas of the eye-door process. It seems that there is the universe,
the world full of beings, people and things. However, in reality
there is citta which thinks about the shape and form of the four
great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They appear in
different combinations, they appear as beings, people, the moon, the
sun, the stars, as many different things. When we experience things
through touch, only cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or
pressure appear. If we know dhammas as they are, we realize what the
world is: the dhammas which arise and fall away very rapidly, which
are transitory. All dhammas which arise have to fall away, without
exception. If one does not realize the arising and falling away of
dhammas, one only pays attention to conventional truth. The cittas of
the mind-door process remember a “whole”, the shape and form of what
appears through the eyes, they remember the meaning of high and low
sounds which appear through the ears. The names of different things
are remembered, and then only concepts are known.

*******
Nina.


#92148 From: "sprlrt" <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:39 am 
Subject: Re: More on anatta  sprlrt 
  Hi Ken

In this seemingly perfect magician trick known as samsara there is a
small hole in the roof as KS says, or (from the Matrix movie) a tiny
bug in the software.
It is the first mind door process after a sense door one. It
experiences the nimitta of the same object experienced the preceeding
sense door process (one of the 7 visaya rupa that can be
object/arammana of a sense door process, rupa that has already fallen
away with the last citta of this process), it is through the mind door
but it isn't thinking yet.
Nimitta basically means whatever is experienced through the mind door,
its object, so in the the mind door process we are considering it is
not concept/pannati yet, though it will turn into it in the following
ones.
All these processes arise and fall away at an unthinkable speed, so
it's no use trying to intercept the nimitta that is not yet pannati,
but I think it would be useful considering how they can hardly belong
to a self.
We are talking about panna here, the main dhamma that conditions the
arising of satipatthana, which sees this tiny hole and starts working
on it until there's no roof hiding the dhammas anymore.

Alberto

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau"
<kenhowardau@...> wrote:

Most people think atta just means "eternal soul." As you go
> on to explain it is actually everything we think we experience.
>
> Ken H
> 


#92149 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:29 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear Howard,

Regarding:

'There is nothing else in samsara other than conditions.' TG, 2008.

H: "One meaning of 'sankhara' is any conditioned  dhamma. Among the
paramattha dhammas, there are exactly the sankhara (a.k.a., sankhata
dhammas), and nibbana, the sole asankhata dhamma. Is it not the case
that every conditioned dhamma is a condition for other dhammas?"

Scott: The statement in question comes from TG.  I don't know how you
read TG, but I read TG to deny that dhamma can have a characteristic.
  Do you think that I'm missing this point that seems crucial to his
position?  I've not yet read an explanation by TG as to how it is,
with no characteristic, any dhamma can serve as condition for or be
conditioned by any other dhamma.  I would say 'everything is
conditioned' or something like that.  But then I would be able to list
the 'everything' - well, not me, but I'd go to the Abhidhamma or
whatever - you know what I mean.

TG: "So, every  conditioned dhamma is a condition; that is, every
dhamma other than nibbana is a  condition. So, what is the problem in
saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara other than conditions.'?
Indeed, every dhamma in the  world is a condition for other dhammas,
is it not? What exactly is it that you  object to in referring to the
worldly dhammas as conditions? I really don't understand."

Scott: As I said, I read TG to deny the reality of a dhamma - he does
not accept the position that there are paramattha dhammaa.  I read TG
to posit a theoretically untenable position which would have it that
there is a big wash of insubstantiality called 'conditions'.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92150 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:51 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

TG:  "'A non-existent emergent property.'  Humm.  That's a  bizarre
notion from my perspective..."

Scott: That is how I would encapsulate the perspective.

TG: "This type of charge arises, IMO, due  to the apparent inability
to understand the implications of phenomena that are  conditionally
relative..."

Scott: No, the view is just wrong. ;-)

TG:  "Phenomena don't not exist.  Nor do they exist as 'ultimate
realities with their own characteristics.' They are 'relativities'
which entails that they do arise, but they don't arise as "their own"
  thing.  This is why the Buddha calls phenomena hollow, empty,
insubstantial, void, like a mirage, etc.  He NEVER calls them
'ultimate realities'..."

Scott: This is the insubstantialist miasma that I was pointing out to
Howard when trying to explain how I take issue with the statement that
there is 'nothing but conditions'.  The above view seems to mean this
literally.

And seriously, TG, the above is not relevant - you know, what the
Buddha calls this or that - he never called them 'relativities'
either, that's for sure.  But this misses the point.  (And don't go
all like, 'What?  What the Buddha says isn't relevant!?' - you know
that is not my point.) ;-)

Can you explain how, without characteristic, anything can serve as
condition for, or be conditioned by anything else?  I understand how,
in the mix, as it were, of the conditioned, the conditioning and the
forces between, there is no separating out any single element - that
is, a conditioned dhamma cannot just 'exist of its own accord'.  But
the view you posit would have it that a conditioned dhamma cannot be
*distinguishable by characteristic* from any other conditioned dhamma.
How is this anything but a puree?  For example, how do you deal with
the dichotomy of kusala/akusala within the view?

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92151 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:29 am 
Subject: Re: More on anatta  philofillet 
  Hi Alberto

   Wow, you really explain this stuff well! (In fact I almost suspect
you are a fake account started by Matt Roke (Ivan) who also puts it
clear like you do! Confess! :)

   metta,

   phil

  p.s the dome of lobha that A.S talked about was always my favourite....


> In this seemingly perfect magician trick known as samsara there is a
> small hole in the roof as KS says, or (from the Matrix movie) a tiny
> bug in the software. 


#92152 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:36 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 10/31/2008 4:41:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jonabbott@... writes:

Hi  Howard & TG

> Here is the difference.  Scott says  that  Nama is the reality that
> experiences.  I say  Nama IS  experience.
>  -----------------------------------------
> Howard:
>   And I say that nama is experiencING. ;-) But  basically, we
agree on
> this. Agent terminology should be avoided - it  expresses  and leads
to atta-view.
>  ------------------------------------------

You both feel that it's  important to avoid terminology that connotes
self, and that the use of  such terminology leads to wrong view.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Then why does every other ordinary-language  utterance by a meditator on
DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies  self-view!!"? Buddha forbid,
it would seem, if anyone should ever speak of  willing something or doing
anything at all for that matter unless it is quoting  KS!
     Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is  affected by the
terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know that! In  fact, you and
others
here who share your interpretation of the Dhamma, when it  suits you stand on
your head to resist others using "personal"  terminology." Jon, a drop of
introspection might show you that you are not  always "playing fair."
-----------------------------------------------



I don't think this is an idea that appears in the  texts.
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Jon, have you ordered a bumper sticker to that  effect? ;-)
-----------------------------------------------

Nor do I
see the Buddha avoiding conventional atta-sounding terminology  ('I',
'self', etc).
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     But YOU insist on it - when it suits you,  as I pointed out.
     Such language is sometimes easy to avoid and  sometimes not so easy. Any
Indo-European language, being noun-based, offers  difficulty in avoiding it.
Often the use is rather harmless, but other times it  is far from harmless,
reinforcing our tendency to reify, and the repeated use of  agency terminology
when applied, in particular, to conditioned paramattha  dhammas, which the
Buddha has repeatedly said are anicca, dukkha, and anatta,  and as insubstantial
as
can be, is very harmful in that respect.
     With regard to conditioned dhammas, the Buddha  taught the following in
the Phena Sutta: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling,  a bubble; perception,
a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a  magic trick —  this
has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However  you observe them,
appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to  whoever sees them
appropriately,"
which is a far cry from repeatedly  referring to them as realities with
own-being and own-nature. In the Kaccanagota  Sutta, the Buddha taught that both
existence and non-existence are extremes.  So, both views need to be avoided!
And
the Buddha doesn't teach  that persons, only, are unreal but that also the
elements of the  khandhas are unreal. He teaches that none of them should be
thought of as a  true reality or entity. In the Uraga sutta, the Buddha said
that
these are all  without core or substance and that "This is all unreal."
----------------------------------------------------


If  you are suggesting that wrong view can be avoided, or right view
developed,  by careful choice of terminology I would disagree.
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     What's being suggested is that how one speaks  affects how one thinks,
and that care must be taken in speaking for that reason  among others. That, and
nothing more, has been suggested.
---------------------------------------------------
   That's
a similar idea to the one that by being restrained in  how we act we
can develop more kusala.
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     In the bat of an eye and a movement of the lip, you  have negated the
very obvious psychological fact that actions (including  speech) affect
attititude. Have you read that denial in the "texts," Jon? Does  the Buddha not
repeatedly endorse intentionally speaking carefully? Does he  say that this
should
happen only if it is unwilled? I find this position absurd,  Jon.
-----------------------------------------------------
To my understanding of the teachings,
things are in fact the other  way around, namely, if more kusala is
developed, one's conduct becomes  purer.
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Actions, including speech, do affect  attitude! It is not a one-way
street.
------------------------------------------------------

So whole  question of whether it's better to say "IS experience" or
"is experiencING"  has no bearing on the development of the path, in
my  view.

Jon
=============================
With metta,
Howard


#92153 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:40 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

Regarding:

Me: "You refer to something called 'seeing' - an entity - but then
posit that 'seeing' is a 'condition' - another entity. You also
suggest that the only things 'seeing' can 'see' are 'conditions'. This
is now 'seeing sees seeing' or 'conditions see conditions' or some
other such confusing statement. 'Seeing' is a conceptual entity as you
set it out.  I view seeing as a characteristic of a certain type of
consciousness which can serve as a conditioning element or a
conditioned element depending on the situation. This is still with the
caveat that there is no 'seer' - just seeing. See? ;-)"

TG:  "...Actually, I understand your statement above and agree with
it.  I would use 'quality' instead of characteristic, a minor point.
  And I'm pretty sure if you expanded it, we would further depart."

Scott: This is an odd reversal, TG.  What do you agree with, in the
above statement?  Do you agree with:

"...I view seeing as a characteristic of a certain type of
consciousness which can serve as a conditioning element or a
conditioned element depending on the situation. This is still with the
caveat that there is no 'seer' - just seeing."

Scott: If so, in what way?  It seems almost absurd to suddenly say
that, if we call it 'quality' and not 'characteristic' then everything
is fine.  We can consider the Paa.li - lakkha.na and sabhaava - if you
wish.

TG: "It appears to me that you may think that 'words and word order'
are the actual expressions of what is real.  For IMO, what I'm saying
is just a  different form of what your saying.  Though I suspect your
'language form' is designed to support a contention of 'ultimate
realities with their own characteristics'..."

Scott: We are not saying the same thing, TG - at least we never have
up until now.  I'm afraid I'm not following you - which, I know, is
your constant complaint.  I do have whiplash now, though.  Perhaps I
can get on disability. ;-)

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92154 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:11 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Alberto (& Phil),

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:

>  Hi Alberto
>
>   Wow, you really explain this stuff well!
...
S: I agree - it's very, very impressive. It takes a lot, really a lot of careful
listening and considering to 'get' and then be able to express all the deep
points you do.

When a friend comes along like you, seemingly 'out of the blue' (or Lukas from
Poland or Joel from Canada) who really appreciates and listens carefully to the
recordings, it makes all the hard work of making them available so very
worthwhile. I'm sure Nina feels the same with her books and of course with DSG
too.

In your first anatta message (#92070), the only small point I was going to
question, you already corrected in your next one (#92123).

And in that second message, you referred to how the "7 visaya [S: the 7 rupas
experienced through the sense doors, visible object etc] are the only rupa that
can come into contact with the pasada rupa [S: eye-sense etc], in other words
they are the only object/arammana that vipaka cittas can have."  I wondered
about the tadarammana cittas in the mind-door processes which are also vipaka
cittas. However, checking C.15 in Nina's ADL, I think you are correct: they only
arise in mind-door processes following sense-door processes when the object is
the same, i.e still visible object, sound etc. Very interesting indeed.

What I particularly appreciate is how you convey the value of the intricacy of
Abhidhamma as being so relevant and essential to an understanding now in daily
life. For example, stressing how all the vipaka cittas only ever experience the
7 visaya rupas really brings home how 'mind-created' all the rest of experience
is, including all that we take for the problems in life.

Keep up your series - at this rate you'll have Phil seriously back into the
Abhidhamma-fold in no time:-) (Actually, he's already in the fold, otherwise
he'd never be able to read and appreciate your posts. He just likes to make a
fuss about it now and again:-).
...

>(In fact I almost suspect
> you are a fake account started by Matt Roke (Ivan) who also puts it
> clear like you do! Confess! :)
...
S: Yes, that was funny when Ivan (who you'll have heard on recordings, Alberto),
started posting as Matt and none of us knew and were so impressed:-). Perhaps
Sukin can give Ivan/Matt a nudge to start writing again, giving himself (Sukin)
a nudge at the same time.
...
>  p.s the dome of lobha that A.S talked about was always my favourite....
>
>
> > In this seemingly perfect magician trick known as samsara there is a
> > small hole in the roof as KS says, or (from the Matrix movie) a tiny
> > bug in the software.
....
S: And if you bring Matrix metaphors into the Abhidhamma, you may even encourage
James to consider more of what you write about anatta:-)

Metta,

Sarah
======== 


#92155 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:11 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Scott (and TG) -

In a message dated 10/31/2008 7:29:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  Howard,

Regarding:

'There is nothing else in samsara other than  conditions.' TG, 2008.

H: "One meaning of 'sankhara' is any  conditioned  dhamma. Among the
paramattha dhammas, there are exactly  the sankhara (a.k.a., sankhata
dhammas), and nibbana, the sole asankhata  dhamma. Is it not the case
that every conditioned dhamma is a condition  for other dhammas?"

Scott: The statement in question comes from  TG.  I don't know how you
read TG, but I read TG to deny that dhamma  can have a characteristic.
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I understand TG to view dhammas as  qualities and activities, each a
"condition" in the sense of a happening of  some sort that leads to other
dhammas.
The word 'quality' is somewhat safer than  'characteristic', as the use of
'characteristic' more easily leads to the  question "of what?" What I understand
TG to object to is the terminology "own  characteristic," for two reasons: 1)
It suggests some thing that *has* a  characteristic, as opposed to it just
*being* a quality (like hardness or mental  clarity) or an activity (like
feeling or seeing), and 2) It suggests  self-existence instead of dependent
existence.
     This is my take on TG's position, and it is mine as  well. To the extent
that I misunderstand your position, TG, please do correct  me.
---------------------------------------------------


Do  you think that I'm missing this point that seems crucial to  his
position?
-------------------------------------------------
Howard"
     I don't know, maybe. I think TG takes  exception most of all to the use
of "own," for ownership and Dhamma (except for  the conventional talk of one
being the owner of one's kamma) don't go together  well.
----------------------------------------------

I've not  yet read an explanation by TG as to how it is,
with no characteristic, any  dhamma can serve as condition for or be
conditioned by any other  dhamma.  I would say 'everything is
conditioned' or something like  that.  But then I would be able to list
the 'everything' - well, not  me, but I'd go to the Abhidhamma or
whatever - you know what I  mean.

TG: "So, every  conditioned dhamma is a condition; that is,  every
dhamma other than nibbana is a  condition. So, what is the  problem in
saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara other than  conditions.'?
Indeed, every dhamma in the  world is a condition for  other dhammas,
is it not? What exactly is it that you  object to in  referring to the
worldly dhammas as conditions? I really don't  understand."
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The foregoing was written by me, Scott, not  TG.
------------------------------------------------



Scott: As I said, I read TG to deny the reality of a dhamma -  he does
not accept the position that there are paramattha  dhammaa.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I suppose that this depends on what one means by  "reality." In the sense
that hardness is experienced and unimagined, it is real.  But it is not a
separate reality with own-being and independent nature.
-----------------------------------------------

I  read TG
to posit a theoretically untenable position which would have it  that
there is a big wash of insubstantiality called  'conditions'.
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I'm not clear on what you are asserting here,  Scott.
--------------------------------------------




Sincerely,

Scott.
==========================
With metta,
Howard



#92156 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:36 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Alberto,

--- On Wed, 29/10/08, sprlrt <sprlrt@...> wrote:
>The characteric of dukkha, unsatisfactoriness inherent in all nama and
rupa dhammaa, begins to be known only at the eight level of vipassana,
nibbida-nana
...
S: I had meant to comment on this sentence too. I wonder if you heard this on
one of the recordings or read it somewhere?

I agree that unlesss there is the understanding of anatta (of namas and rupas),
there cannot be the understanding of the impermanence of namas and rupas. And
without the realisation of the arising and falling away of namas and rupas, the
characteristic of dukkha is not really apparent.

However, I would have said that this characteristic begins to be known to some
degree (if only intellectually) as dhammas are understood and begins to be more
clearly apparent when there is the realisation of the arising and falling away
of realities at the 3rd and 4th stages.

But you're right that only at nibidda-nana is there the real 'turning away' or
dispassion from namas and rupas through the understanding of the danger and
disadvantage of what is inherently anicca, dukkha and anatta.

Thanks again - you help me to reflect further.

Metta,

Sarah
========= 


#92157 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:39 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear Howard,

I'll get back to you on the rest, but regarding:

"TG: 'So, every  conditioned dhamma is a condition; that is,  every
dhamma other than nibbana is a  condition. So, what is the  problem in
saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara other than  conditions.'?
Indeed, every dhamma in the  world is a condition for  other dhammas,
is it not? What exactly is it that you  object to in  referring to the
worldly dhammas as conditions? I really don't  understand.'"
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
      The foregoing was written by me, Scott, not  TG."
------------------------------------------------

Scott: Ha.  Of course it was!  Sorry.  Howard, TG - what's the
difference? ;-)

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92158 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:53 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: What should one DO? was Sri Lanka Revisited.  philofillet 
  Hi Nina

> N: Not so sudden when one reviews old talks where she mentioned
> nimitta, but we ourselves had not paid attention.

  Hmm. Sorry, but I am still confused. I remember the very moment I
heard that talk, at the top of a steep hill near my apartment as I
was walking, and thought that it was different from usual just as
you said "this is new!" So the coincidence of our both thinking that
at the same moment has stuck with me.


> Why the importance of nimitta?

  Ph: What can I say? It feels important, this distinction between
characteristic of dhammas, and the nimitta of dhammas, and I know it
felt important to you when you exclaimed "this is new!" So we were
both wrong. OK. Whatever. I will not be bothering you with these
kind of concerns much longer. It's a waste of time and energy for
both of us.

   metta,

   phil 


#92159 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:13 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of Virtues & 1st Jhana - Ariya  sarahprocter... 
  Dear Scott,

--- On Tue, 28/10/08, Scott <scduncan@...> wrote:
>>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 consciousness. "

>>Sarah: "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?..."

>Scott: Yes, that makes sense. I think I'm clear that the reviewing
cittas are not lokuttara. I was thinking that the object of these
sort of cittas is (or was?) lokuttara. Can you clarify what the
object is exactly?
...
Sarah: Yes, I questioned the text, because I thought it wasn't clear (the
translation seeming to suggest the reviewing cittas were lokuttara ??).

The objects of the reviewing cittas (following the path and fruition lokuttara
cittas) are:

a) always these lokuttara cittas of [1]path and [2]fruition as well as the
lokuttara object, [3]nibbana
b) usually the [4]defilements abandoned and [5]defilements remaining, i.e
mundane objects.

So these are the five kinds of reviewing knowledge for the first 3 paths. For
the arahat, obviously there are no defilements remaining, so there are only four
kinds of reviewing knowledge. Total 19 that one comes across in texts.
...

>.Sarah: ....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?"

>Scott: I think there's a lesson here - which I like! :-) These
paccevekkana cittas, then, only arise in their order and in a sequence
after the arising of the Path.
....
Sarah: Yes.
...
>Scott: These are not lokuttara, which I knew,
but I had thought that this sort of reviewing was possible again
thereafter. I now wonder if this is a once-only sort of thing like
the arising of the Path itself, following on but just one time. Can
you clarify how you see this? In the Vissuddhimagga text this would
seem to be the case.
...
Sarah: That's how I understand the paccavekka.na ~naa.na cittas to be: i.e
only arising (as a 'set') once after the magga and phala cittas.

From "Survey" which I just happen to have next to my desk:

"Reviewing knowledge (paccavekkha.na ~naa.na) is the sixteenth stage of
vipassanaa ~naa.na.

When the magga-viithi-cittas have fallen away they are succeeded by
bhavanga-cittas and then mind-door process cittas arise. These cittas review the
enlightenment that was attained. In one process cittas review the magga-citta,
in one process the phala-citta, in one process the defilements that have been
eradicated, in another process the defilements which are still remaining and in
another process again nibbaana."

I still have a question in my mind about the 7 knowledges as given in the sutta
which the commentary note says refers to these paccavekkha.na ~naa.na, but it's
rather a technical point.

Metta,

Sarah
========= 


#92160 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:13 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Scott (and TG) -

In a message dated 10/31/2008 9:40:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  Howard,

I'll get back to you on the rest, but regarding:

"TG:  'So, every  conditioned dhamma is a condition; that is,   every
dhamma other than nibbana is a  condition. So, what is the   problem in
saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara other than   conditions.'?
Indeed, every dhamma in the  world is a condition  for  other dhammas,
is it not? What exactly is it that you   object to in  referring to the
worldly dhammas as conditions? I really  don't   understand.'"
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
The foregoing was written by me, Scott, not   TG."
------------------------------------------------

Scott:  Ha.  Of course it was!  Sorry.  Howard, TG - what's  the
difference? ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Riiiight! LOLOL!
-------------------------------------------



Sincerely,

Scott.
==========================
With metta,
Howard



#92161 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:22 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/31/2008 2:41:03 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
jonabbott@... writes:

So  whole question of whether it's better to say "IS experience" or
"is  experiencING" has no bearing on the development of the path, in
my  view.

Jon



............................................

Hi Jon


I generally agree.  It was a very minor point I was "playing"  with.  It is
fine to employ "conventional speech" as long as one is aware  of it.  However,
if done in here, there are many in here who will accuse  you of self view or
being deceived by conceptual illusions/delusions.   There's no winning.  LOL


TG


#92162 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:36 am 
Subject: Radical Impermanence and Emptiness (Brief)  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, all -

     The following describes how I am seeing things. It  is not being put
forward as a theory to be argued for or against, but just as  food for thought
for
any who might wish to consider it.
     Recently I have from time to time contemplated what  I think of as
"radical impermanence." By that term I refer to nothing remaining  as-is for
even a
moment. The ramified interdependency of all phenomena together  with something
or other changing all the time guarantees a universal flux  with respect to
which nothing whatsoever can be pinpointed or grasped  as an entity with
separate, substantial existence and identity. The flux of  reality is so
radical,
that the only way to properly describe it is as a  vast, traceless, ever-moving,
ungraspable emptiness, and only our thinking  makes it seem otherwise. This
is becoming increasingly clear to  me.

With metta,
Howard



#92163 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:37 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Phil,

--- On Mon, 27/10/08, Phil <philco777@...> wrote:

>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.
...
> > 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.
...
S: The example that Jon, Han and I were discussing recently was that of Yasa. In
the commentary to the Dhammapada, "The Chief Disciples", 1.8 it says:

"Having set in motion the glorious Wheel of the Law, on the fifth day of the
half-month he established all those monks in Arahatship. On the same day also he
perceived that the noble youth Yasa possessed the dispositions requisite for
Conversion; and when the noble youth Yasa left his house in disgust at what he
saw during the night, he saw him and summoned him and made a monk of him,
saying, "Come, Yasa!" In that same night also he caused him to attain the Fruit
of Conversion, and on the following day caused him to attain Arahatship."

There are lots and lots of examples like this. The Buddha would use his
omniscient wisdom every day to see who was ripe for the teachings.

In 'The Simile of the Field', SN42:7, the Buddha refers to the various
kinds of fields as an analogy for those who can benefit from hearing his
teachings. Like the farmer who selects the most fertile field first, the Buddha
selects the most fertile audience first. The seed that is sown is 'the Dhamma
that is good in the beginning, good in the Middle, and good in the end,with
right meaning and phrasing'; and 'the holy life that is perfectly complete and
pure'.

I take the cultivated soil to be the right accumulations to be able to hear the
teachings, the planting and fertilizing to be the hearing of the teachings and
the crop to be the growth of wisdom.

Metta,

Sarah
========= 


#92164 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:39 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott


In a message dated 10/31/2008 5:51:52 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  TG,

Regarding:

TG: "'A non-existent emergent property.' Humm.  That's a bizarre
notion from my perspective.not

Scott: That is  how I would encapsulate the perspective.

TG: "This type of charge  arises, IMO, due to the apparent inability
to understand the implications  of phenomena that are conditionally
relative..."

Scott: No, the  view is just wrong. ;-)

............................................................

TG:  You haven't the slightest clue of "my view" which is  obvious.   ;-)


...........................................................






TG: "Phenomena don't not exist. Nor do they exist as  'ultimate
realities with their own characteristics.realities with their own chara
which entails that they do arise, but they don't arise as  "their own"
thing. This is why the Buddha calls phenomena hollow, empty,
insubstantial, void, like a mirage, etc. He NEVER calls them
'ultimate  realities'..'u

Scott: This is the insubstantialist miasma that I  was pointing out to
Howard when trying to explain how I take issue with the  statement that
there is 'nothing but conditions'. The above view seems to  mean this
literally.
............................................................

TG:  I'm sorry you have such profound disagreements with the Suttas  are lack
of understanding them.  You seem nearly appalled by the  terminology in the
Suttas.   :-(   Yet willfully go along  with "ultimate realities with their own
characteristics" which is not in the  Suttas.  I real untenable position IMO.


.......................................................





And seriously, TG, the above is not relevant - you know, what  the
Buddha calls this or that - he never called them  'relativities'

.................................................................

TG:  "This being, that is.  With the arising of this, that  arises.  This not
being, that is not.  With the ceasing of this, that  ceases."


The principles of dependent arising clearly show that phenomena are
"relative" the conditional circumstances.


...................................................................



either, that's for sure. But this misses the point. (And don't  go
all like, 'What? What the Buddha says isn't relevant!?' - you  know
that is not my point.) ;-)

Can you explain how, without  characteristic,

.............................................................


TG:  The term I object to is "OWN characteristics."  Nothing has  anything
"of its own."  Sabhava, as far as I know, only occurs in the  Suttas in the
Patisambhidamagga and there it is denied...repeatedly.


...................................................................



anything can serve as
condition for, or be conditioned by anything  else? I understand how,
in the mix, as it were, of the conditioned, the  conditioning and the
forces between, there is no separating out any single  element - that
is, a conditioned dhamma cannot just 'exist of its own  accord'. But
the view you posit would have it that a conditioned dhamma  cannot be
*distinguishable by characteristic*
...........................................................................

TG:  I have repeatedly said that phenomena are distinguishable by
"qualities."  There difference is ... "characteristic," in this group, has  come
to mean
"own characteristic."  Since I have repeatedly said this in  post to you, as
recently as yesterday...do you just choose to ignore it, or is  your intention
to calumniate my position?  It seems the latter.


TG OUT


#92165 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:45 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard and Jon


In a message dated 10/31/2008 6:37:10 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
Then why does every other ordinary-language utterance by a  meditator on
DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies  self-view!!"DSG meet with a
v
it would seem, if anyone should ever  speak of willing something or doing
anything at all for that matter unless  it is quoting KS!
Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is  affected by the
terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know  that! In fact, you and
others
here who share your interpretation of the  Dhamma, when it suits you stand on
your head to resist others using  "personal" terminology.your head to resi
introspection might show you  that you are not always "playing fair."



..........................................................


TG:  Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



#92166 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:56 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  In a message dated 10/31/2008 6:40:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Scott:  We are not saying the same thing, TG - at least we never have
up until now.  I'm afraid I'm not following you - which, I know, is
your constant  complaint. I do have whiplash now, though. Perhaps I
can get on disability.  ;-)



..............................................

Hi Scott

Its increasingly apparent you haven't understood me up to now and still
don't.  So after years of explaining it to you, I don't think one post now  will
clear it up.  I think you do not have the scope to understand  me.  (With all
due (un)modesty.)  Wish you did.  I think  your view of Dhamma is unnecessarily
restrictive...like blinders on a  horse.


TG


#92167 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:59 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Howard and Scott


In a message dated 10/31/2008 7:12:01 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
I understand TG to view dhammas as qualities and activities,  each a
"condition" in the sense of a happening of some sort that leads to  other
dhammas.
The word 'quality' is somewhat safer than  'characteristic'The word 'qualit
'characteristic' more easily leads to  the question "of what?" What I
understand
TG to object to is the  terminology "own characteristic,TG to object to is the
It suggests  some thing that *has* a characteristic, as opposed to it just
*being* a  quality (like hardness or mental clarity) or an activity (like
feeling or  seeing), and 2) It suggests self-existence instead of dependent
existence.
This is my take on TG's position, and it is mine as well. To  the extent
that I misunderstand your position, TG, please do correct  me.



..................................................................

TG:  Howard, This is EXACTLY correct!!!!!!!!!


TG


#92168 From: TGrand458@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:02 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  TGrand458@... 
  Hi Scott and Howard


In a message dated 10/31/2008 7:40:22 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  Howard,

I'll get back to you on the rest, but regarding:

"TG:  'So, every conditioned dhamma is a condition; that is, every
dhamma other  than nibbana is a condition. So, what is the problem in
saying 'There is  nothing else in samsara other than conditions.'s
Indeed, every dhamma  in the world is a condition for other dhammas,
is it not? What exactly is  it that you object to in referring to the
worldly dhammas as conditions? I  really don't  understand.'w
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
The  foregoing was written by me, Scott, not  TG."
------------------------------------------------

Scott:  Ha. Of course it was! Sorry. Howard, TG - what's the
difference?  ;-)



.................................................................

TG:  The difference is Howard is generally a better writer than I  am.  The
view is mine as well.

TG


#92169 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:22 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  philofillet 
  Hi Sarah

   Thanks for the below, and for reminding me about this thread! But
the below isn't quite what I was looking for. I was thinking of
something that is a stock phrase, often repeated in the suttanta. I
know it is, for example, used in the sutta where the Buddha meets a
leper on the road and teaches him. It is something to the effect
that the Buddha teaches dana, the dangers of sensuality, rebirth and
so on, I forget, then when he sees the listener is ready proceeds to
the "teachings particular to the Buddha" which include, surprisingly
enough, the noble truths. As I said above, it is a stock phrase,
quite often used in suttas I think, but I can't take the time right
now to track it down. (Also I assume there's no need to do so
because people must be familiar with it! Anyone? Thanks!)

   metta,

   phil


> ...
> > > 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.
> ...
> S: The example that Jon, Han and I were discussing recently was
that of Yasa. In the commentary to the Dhammapada, "The Chief
Disciples", 1.8 it says:
>
> "Having set in motion the glorious Wheel of the Law, on the fifth
day of the half-month he established all those monks in Arahatship.
On the same day also he perceived that the noble youth Yasa
possessed the dispositions requisite for Conversion; and when the
noble youth Yasa left his house in disgust at what he saw during the
night, he saw him and summoned him and made a monk of him,
saying, "Come, Yasa!" In that same night also he caused him to
attain the Fruit of Conversion, and on the following day caused him
to attain Arahatship."
>
> There are lots and lots of examples like this. The Buddha would
use his omniscient wisdom every day to see who was ripe for the
teachings.
>
> In 'The Simile of the Field', SN42:7, the Buddha refers to the
various
> kinds of fields as an analogy for those who can benefit from
hearing his
> teachings. Like the farmer who selects the most fertile field
first, the Buddha selects the most fertile audience first. The seed
that is sown is 'the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in
the Middle, and good in the end,with right meaning and phrasing';
and 'the holy life that is perfectly complete and pure'.
>
> I take the cultivated soil to be the right accumulations to be
able to hear the teachings, the planting and fertilizing to be the
hearing of the teachings and the crop to be the growth of wisdom.
>
> Metta,
>
> Sarah
> =========
> 


#92170 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:33 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Phil,

--- On Fri, 31/10/08, Phil <philco777@...> wrote:
> ...I was thinking of something that is a stock phrase, often repeated in the
suttanta. I know it is, for example, used in the sutta where the Buddha meets a
leper on the road and teaches him. It is something to the effect that the Buddha
teaches dana, the dangers of sensuality, rebirth and so on, I forget, then when
he sees the listener is ready proceeds to
the "teachings particular to the Buddha" which include, surprisingly
enough, the noble truths.
...
S: Take a look at these recent messages of Han's, & Jon's old one and see if
this isn't what you're after....

Never too late to join in a thread either:-)

Metta,

Sarah
======== 


#92171 From: "sprlrt" <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:49 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta  sprlrt 
  Hi Sarah (Phil, Ken)

Gee... thanks folks, I'm glad you like it!

Sarah, thanks for you remarks, and please correct me whenever is
needed, I do count on it.
Also I haven't thanked Nina yet (and also Larry and Connie) for her
excellent work she's doing with the Visuddhi Magga and tikas
I think it is THE companion to the Visuddhi and it alllowed me to
appreciate this important text which otherwise I, like others, would
have missed completely.

Alberto 


#92172 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:12 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta  nilovg 
  Dear Alberto,
Op 31-okt-2008, om 16:49 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven:

> Also I haven't thanked Nina yet (and also Larry and Connie) for her
> excellent work she's doing with the Visuddhi Magga and tikas
> I think it is THE companion to the Visuddhi and it alllowed me to
> appreciate this important text which otherwise I, like others, would
> have missed completely
-------
N: I am glad to hear this. I would also have missed all the important
points without studying Vis. together with the tiika, going over the
same texts again and again.
I join Sarah in saying: Keep up your series, it is really good and
helpful for many, I am sure.
Nina.



#92173 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:32 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  nilovg 
  Dear Han,
Op 31-okt-2008, om 10:35 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven:

> In Jaataka 354, I like best the mother’s reply:
>
> "Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go.
> Even as he came he went, what cause is here for woe?
> No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
> Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."
-------
N: I followed your example and read tonight at the dinner table the
first part of this Jataka to Lodewijk. Then it struck me that in
between the Buddha referred several times to conditioned realities
that cannot stay : <For in the case of beings like ourselves, death
is certain, life uncertain: all existing things are transitory and
subject to decay.> And further on: <All compounded existences are
transitory and liable to death. And recognizing the transitory nature
of things he went on with ploughing.>
We have to get the deep message behind the story, I think. But how
firm must have been the understanding and the confidence of the
members of that family.
Nina.



#92174 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:08 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  truth_aerator 
  Dear Phil,


> In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Sarah
>
>   Thanks for the below, and for reminding me about this thread! But
> the below isn't quite what I was looking for. I was thinking of
> something that is a stock phrase, often repeated in the suttanta. I
> know it is, for example, used in the sutta where the Buddha meets a
> leper on the road and teaches him. It is something to the effect
> that the Buddha teaches dana, the dangers of sensuality, rebirth
>and
> so on, I forget, then when he sees the listener is ready proceeds
>to
> the "teachings particular to the Buddha" which include,
surprisingly
> enough, the noble truths. As I said above, it is a stock phrase,
> quite often used in suttas I think, but I can't take the time right
> now to track it down. (Also I assume there's no need to do so
> because people must be familiar with it! Anyone? Thanks!)
>

Generosity (dâna)
Virtue (sîla)
Heaven (sagga)
Danger of sensual pleasure (kâmâna&#7747; âdînava)
Renunciation (nekkhamma)
Then when mind becomes bright, pliant, workable and so forth,
The Four Noble Truths (cattâri ariya-saccâni) is taught.

At this stage one is a sotopanna.


"So, aiming at Suppabuddha the leper, he gave a step-by-step talk,
i.e., a talk on giving, a talk on virtue, a talk on heaven; he
declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensual
passions, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when he saw that
Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from
hindrances, elated, & bright, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar
to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And
just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye,
in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very
seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever
is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html




Best wishes, 


#92175 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:22 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: What should one DO? was Sri Lanka Revisited.  truth_aerator 
  Hi Phil,

>- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <philco777@...> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Nina
>
> > N: Not so sudden when one reviews old talks where she mentioned
> > nimitta, but we ourselves had not paid attention.
>
>  Hmm. Sorry, but I am still confused. I remember the very moment I
> heard that talk, at the top of a steep hill near my apartment as I
> was walking, and thought that it was different from usual just as
> you said "this is new!" So the coincidence of our both thinking
that
> at the same moment has stuck with me.
>
>
> > Why the importance of nimitta?
>
>  Ph: What can I say? It feels important, this distinction between
> characteristic of dhammas, and the nimitta of dhammas, and I know
>it
> felt important to you when you exclaimed "this is new!" So we were
> both wrong. OK. Whatever. I will not be bothering you with these
> kind of concerns much longer. It's a waste of time and energy for
> both of us.
>
>   metta,
>
>   phil


Regarding Nimittas. In suttas the word meant "sign", as in something
that is most obvious by which you remember something. It plays a role
in sense restraint of a monk, or a person in a retreat, or the one
who is concerned with cultuvating wholesome qualites and not giving
extra fuel for unwholesome qualities.


Ex:
"On seeing a form with the eye, we will not grasp at any theme or
variations by which — if we were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail us. We will practice for its restraint.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html

ven thanisaro has translated nimitta as a 'theme'.



Best wishes, 


#92176 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:32 pm 
Subject: Re: Radical Impermanence and Emptiness (Brief)  truth_aerator 
  Hi Howard,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>
> Hi, all -
>
> The following describes how I am seeing things.

I used to do a lot of speculating, reading & studying about a radical
impermanence.

Personally, I see a different kind of impermanence.  I believe that the
Buddha has laid a stress on a very close to the heart impermanence.
Impermanence (in Buddhist sense) is radically connected to dukkha and
so forth. I personally do not see the connection or suffering in
the "gadzillion of cittas rising and falling every second" sort of
impermanence. I see suffering to be intimately connected with Body
aging, getting sick, becoming ill, dying, decomposing and the whole
nine yards. I believe the Buddha emphasized this too.

Remember the story about Divine Messengers? The sight of old man, sick
man, corpse  installed sense of urgency.


In MN28 sutta the Buddha taught about impermanence of the external
world, not to mention the Body.



"there comes a time, friends, when the external liquid property is
provoked and washes away village, town, city, district, & country.

there comes a time, friends, when the external fire property is
provoked and consumes village, town, city, district, & country; and
then, coming to the edge of a green district, the edge of a road, the
edge of a rocky district, to the water's edge, or to a lush, well-
watered area, goes out from lack of sustenance.

"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external wind property is
provoked and blows away village, town, city, district, & country.
So when even in the external wind property — so vast — inconstancy will
be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay
will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, then what in this
short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I
am'? It has here only a 'no.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html



This isn't meant to argue.



Best wishes, 


#92177 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:33 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What should one DO? was Sri Lanka Revisited.  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Alex -

In a message dated 10/31/2008 5:22:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
truth_aerator@... writes:

Regarding Nimittas. In suttas the word meant "sign", as in something
that is most obvious by which you remember something. It plays a role
in sense restraint of a monk, or a person in a retreat, or the one
who  is concerned with cultuvating wholesome qualites and not giving
extra fuel  for unwholesome qualities.

==========================
     I take one meaning of 'nimitta' to be the same as  the meaning of
'percept': a low-level, relatively simple mental construct  that is a
representation/depiction of what was directly observed and is a kind  of
elementary,
proto-concept.

With metta,
Howard



#92178 From: upasaka@... 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:38 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Radical Impermanence and Emptiness (Brief)  upasaka_howard 
  Hi, Alex -

In a message dated 10/31/2008 5:32:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
truth_aerator@... writes:

Hi  Howard,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@...  wrote:
>
> Hi, all -
>
> The following  describes how I am seeing things.

I used to do a lot of speculating,  reading & studying about a radical
impermanence.

Personally, I  see a different kind of impermanence.  I believe that the
Buddha has  laid a stress on a very close to the heart impermanence.
Impermanence (in  Buddhist sense) is radically connected to dukkha and
so forth. I  personally do not see the connection or suffering in
the "gadzillion of  cittas rising and falling every second" sort of
impermanence. I see  suffering to be intimately connected with Body
aging, getting sick,  becoming ill, dying, decomposing and the whole
nine yards. I believe the  Buddha emphasized this too.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     In the presence of change and clinging, suffering  occurs.
------------------------------------------------



Remember the story about Divine Messengers? The sight of old  man, sick
man, corpse  installed sense of urgency.


In MN28  sutta the Buddha taught about impermanence of the external
world, not to  mention the Body.



"there comes a time, friends, when the  external liquid property is
provoked and washes away village, town, city,  district, & country.

there comes a time, friends, when the  external fire property is
provoked and consumes village, town, city,  district, & country; and
then, coming to the edge of a green district,  the edge of a road, the
edge of a rocky district, to the water's edge, or  to a lush, well-
watered area, goes out from lack of sustenance.

"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external wind property is
provoked and blows away village, town, city, district, & country.
So when even in the external wind property — so vast — inconstancy will
be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay
will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, then what in this
short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I
am'? It has here only a  'no.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html



This  isn't meant to argue.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     That sounds good to me! :-)
------------------------------------------------





Best wishes,

==============================
With metta,
Howard



#92179 From: "Alex" <truth_aerator@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:40 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: What should one DO? was Sri Lanka Revisited.  truth_aerator 
  Hi Howard,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>
> Hi, Alex -
>
> In a message dated 10/31/2008 5:22:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> truth_aerator@... writes:
>
> Regarding Nimittas. In suttas the word meant "sign", as in
>something that is most obvious by which you remember something. It
>plays a role
> in sense restraint of a monk, or a person in a retreat, or the one
> who  is concerned with cultuvating wholesome qualites and not
>giving  extra fuel  for unwholesome qualities.
>
> ==========================
>I take one meaning of 'nimitta' to be the same as  the meaning of
> 'percept': a low-level, relatively simple mental construct  that is
>a representation/depiction of what was directly observed and is a
>kind  of elementary,
> proto-concept.
>
> With metta,
> Howard


You may be right.  The fact is that word nimitta in the Buddha's time
meant quite different from the meaning given to it by some scholars,
living ~1000 years later.


Best wishes, 


#92180 From: "szmicio" <szmicio@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:52 pm 
Subject: Present moment  szmicio 
  Dear Dhamma friends,
I think a lot about things, concepts and there is this strong belive
all is real. Can we stop it?

What about our body? Can we feel pain? Or is it another concept?

I am busy now, cant time to listen. There is thinking about daily
activities all the time. This kind of thinking takes all my attention.
How can there be right understending develop?
How can sati arise in such circumstances?

When I am busy I dont think about Dhamma. How can panja arise in such
moments?

What is a diffrence between moments of magga, and moments of pala?

Which parts of eightfold-path are cetasikas?

Best Wishes
Lukas 


#92181 From: "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:01 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta  buddhatrue 
  Hi Sarah,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott
<sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

> ....
> S: And if you bring Matrix metaphors into the Abhidhamma, you may
even encourage James to consider more of what you write about anatta:-)
>

;-)) I am not really a huge Matrix fan.  I reviewed what Alberto wrote
and I don't agree with his definition of atta (self).  It is
overreaching to state that everything we experience through the sense
doors is atta simply because the mind conceptualizes those sense
impressions.  I see that he came to this conclusion only after
repeated and concentrated listening to KS.  If Alberto gave as much
attention to the suttas he would not come to such a bizarre conclusion.

Take for example this sutta:

"Now, lord, is perception a person's self, or is perception one thing
and self another?"

"What self do you posit, Potthapada?"

"I posit a gross self, possessed of form, made up of the four great
existents [earth, water, fire, and wind], feeding on physical food."

"Then, Potthapada, your self would be gross, possessed of form, made
up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food. That being
the case, then for you perception would be one thing and self another.
And it's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how
perception will be one thing and self another: even as there remains
this gross self — possessed of form, made up of the four great
existents, and feeding on food — one perception arises for that person
as another perception passes away. It's through this line of reasoning
that one can realize how perception will be one thing and self
another."

"Then, lord, I posit a mind-made self complete in all its parts, not
inferior in its faculties." 8

"Then, Potthapada, your self would be mind-made, complete in all its
parts, not inferior in its faculties. That being the case, then for
you perception would be one thing and self another. And it's through
this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one
thing and self another: even as there remains this mind-made self —
complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties — one
perception arises for that person as another perception passes away.
It's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how
perception will be one thing and self another."

"Then, lord, I posit a formless self made of perception."

"Then, Potthapada, your self would be formless and made of perception.
That being the case, then for you perception would be one thing and
self another. And it's through this line of reasoning that one can
realize how perception will be one thing and self another: even as
there remains this formless self made of perception, one perception
arises for that person as another perception passes away. It's through
this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one
thing and self another."

"Is it possible for me to know, lord, whether perception is a person's
self or if perception is one thing and self another?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html

This is just one example, but I could quote others if I had
time.  "Self" or atta is whatever the person takes for self.
That "self" is the sense inside the person's mind of: this is me, this
is mine, this is myself.  People can take any of the five khandas as
being atta "self".  This is how the Buddha defined self.

Alberto is proposing a very interesting philosophy but it is the KS
philosophy, not the Buddha's teaching.  Alberto proposes that
everything we experience is atta because the mind conceptualizes all
experiences.  And the "bug in the system" is that there is a lag time
between the sense impression entering and the conceptualization
process.  And, possibly, we can become mindful of that lag time and
thus interrupt the conceptualization process (well, I am assuming he
is saying this but this last part isn't clear).

I am not impressed by this idea because I happen to believe that what
we conceptualize from sense impressions does correspond to an actual
reality.  In other words, our mind puts together the concept of a
chair because the chair actually exists.  But, boy oh boy am I tired
to death of talking about that!

I have been posting too much lately; I am going to disappear now and
go back into lurking mode.

Metta,
James 


#92182 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:24 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  hantun1 
  Dear Nina (Jon, Sarah, James, Phil, Howard, Tep),

> Nina: I followed your example and read tonight at the dinner table the first
part of this Jataka to Lodewijk. Then it struck me that in between the Buddha
referred several times to conditioned realities that cannot stay : <For in the
case of beings like ourselves, death is certain, life uncertain: all existing
things are transitory and subject to decay.> And further on: <All compounded
existences are transitory and liable to death. And recognizing the transitory
nature of things he went on with ploughing.> We have to get the deep message
behind the story, I think. But how firm must have been the understanding and the
confidence of the members of that family.

----------

Han: Thank you very much for your very useful post. You have indeed brought up
the deeper message behind the story. [For in the case of beings like ourselves,
death is certain, life uncertain: all existing things are transitory and subject
to decay.] and [All compounded existences are transitory and liable to death.
And recognizing the transitory nature of things he went on with ploughing.] were
also in the Burmese translation of the Jaataka.

Respectfully,
Han 


#92183 From: "Scott" <scduncan@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:45 pm 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  scottduncan2 
  Dear TG,

TG: "...I think you do not have the scope to understand  me.  (With
all due (un)modesty.)..."

Scott: Good one, TG.  The irrefutable argument.

Sincerely,

Scott. 


#92184 From: "Phil" <philco777@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:13 pm 
Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  philofillet 
  Hi Alex

  Thanks for this:


> "So, aiming at Suppabuddha the leper, he gave a step-by-step talk,
> i.e., a talk on giving, a talk on virtue, a talk on heaven; he
> declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensual
> passions, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when he saw that
> Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from
> hindrances, elated, & bright, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar
> to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And
> just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye,
> in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very
> seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within
him, "Whatever
> is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html

   I found another one, in MN, somewhere in the 60s (I'm at work now)
that uses quite a different wording, with "teaching of the Buddhas",
I think, which gave me a different understanding than "peculiar to
Awakened Ones." Whenever I see a sutta is referring to Ariyan
understanding, I back off, so I will back off from my previous
understanding of what these suttas are saying until I have time to
study them more carefully! In any case, it doesn't really matter for
me, I think, because I am in no danger of trying to go too deep into
the teachings too soon....

   Thanks also for the help on nimitta. Yes, many meanings in the
tipitika. Someday I might try to track down the one A.S refers to, to
see if it is really taught in Abhidhamma, but not worth worrying
about.

   metta,

   phil 


#92185 From: "sprlrt" <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:59 pm 
Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta  sprlrt 
  Hi Sarah

I'm not very familiar yet with the Survey's chapter on Vipassana
bhavana, to which I was referring when writing about it, I just wanted
to point out the importance of being anatta :-)
The samma-ditthi factor of the Path spells out anatta very cleary, by
being panna itself and by being the opposite of miccha-ditthi, which
is directly connected with atta.
And since samma-magga, patipatti and satipatthana are one and the same
thing, some degree of 'anattaness' is required even before
vipassana-nana stages, right from the start of patipatti, and to be
acquired through pariyatti.

Alberto 


#92186 From: "colette" <ksheri3@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:59 am 
Subject: Mr. Smith goes to Washington D.C.  ksheri3 
  Good Morning Horward,

(Hey! Nobody's
> perfect! LOL!) ,


indeed, the creationist side of things becomes such a hallucination --
after the student begins walking along the path.
----------------------------------------------------
>     Something has been churning in my thoughts that I  would love
to let go
> of, but don't think I can or should do - at least not yet.

colette: that statement, above, is a paper in itself! So I'll mozzey
on. Or, is that what THE WIZ called "eaze on down the road"?
---------------------------


>     I've been reading a book by an Israeli scientist  (physicist &
> biologist), an orthodox Jew much beloved by creationist
Christians. (Hey! Nobody's
> perfect! LOL!) What is presented there doesn't cause  me to believe
in a personal
> god or to see anything incorrect in the Dhamma, but  it does give
me pause as
> to some (possibly intentional) omissions from the  Buddhadhamma

colette: aaaaah, you're so kind to be thinking of me! I like your
line of thought alread! <...>

What caught my eye was that you give the authors of the Dhamma the
chance to be human, the chance to have made a mistake or mistakes,
the potential to have a bad day or get up on the wrong side of the
bed.  THANK YOU!
-------------------------------------


- perhaps some
> of the leaves not in the Buddha's hand.
>     Let me be more precise: The name of the book is  "The Hidden
Face of
> God,"

<....>
----------------------------------------



and it's author is Gerald L Schroeder. He received his  Ph.D from MIT
in
> physics, and then worked at the Weizmann Institute, the Hebrew
University, and
> the Volcani Research Institute. What Dr. Schroeder goes through  in
the book
> that most impresses me is his detailed [almost excruciating
scientific detail!]
> presentation of the extraordinarily intricate complexity of
physical and
> biological structure and organization that enables this  world to
be as it is.

colette: I only have enough time to make a quick statement here:

THERE YOU HAVE IT! They create so much minutia that they get lost.
I've been equating this same behavioral characteristic in "them" with
the actual size of the amount of books REQUIRED to read the U.S. TAX
CODE, and ya think that any single person or group of people could
possibly remember or know all those tiny little details? Lewis Black
caught on to my thoughts and said, in his "RED, WHITE, AND SCREWED"
cable show:

"Oh, no, the Old Testament wasn't good enough for you so you write
another book and call it NEW"

IT'S THE SAME TIRED OLD SCRIPT!

gotta go. I am studying Dharmadhatus at the moment and am intrigued
that there are FOUR DHARMADHATUS but I like Li and Shi (Principle and
Phenomena).

toodles,
colette


<....> 


#92187 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu0@...> 
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:44 pm 
Subject: World as representation!  bhikkhu0 
  Friends:

   The World 'Out there' is an Experience Displayed 'In here':

The young deity Rohitassa
<http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/r/rohitassa.htm>  once asked the
Buddha:
Sir, is it possible - by travelling - to reach, see & know an end of the world,
where one is not born, do not age, do not die, do not pass on, & is not reborn?

The exalted Buddha answered:
That end of the world, where one neither is born, nor ages, nor dies,
nor is reborn, cannot ever be reached, known, or seen by travelling...
However, friend, I say that without reaching the end of the world,
there cannot be any end of Suffering...
It is just here within this fathom long carcass, endowed with conscious
experience, that the world emerges, manifests, ceases, and the Way
leading to its cessation is developed, completed and made known...
Therefore, knowing this world to be thus, the intelligent one reach the
end of the world, by completing the Noble life. Having directly known
the world's end, at ease & in peace, there remains no longing for this or
any other world...!!!





Comments:
This seems IMHO the most profound and far reaching statement in
human history so far... The world start & ends within this very frame
of a conscious corpse... 600 years later the 'Mind-Only' idealists
took this to the extreme by declaring: 'All is Empty'..., which -though
captivating-, leads nowhere, except ever deeper into the entangling
jungle of speculative views... This subtle and deep middle view of a
mirror world, created by observing it, is only seen by the Buddha...!

Source: The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya I 62
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html

The physical world 'out there' is an internal mental representation!

Have a nice day!


  Friendship is the Greatest *
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-)
  .... 


#92188 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu0@...> 
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:38 pm 
Subject: Watch the Manifestation!  bhikkhu0 
  Friends:


The thought manifests as the word;
The word manifests as behaviour;
The deed develops into habit;
And habit hardens into character.
So watch the thought and its ways with care
And let it spring from infinite friendliness
Born out of kindness for all beings.

Ignorance leads to ego,
Ego leads selfishness,
Selfishness leads to aversion,
Aversion leads to anger,
Anger leads to hatred,
Hatred leads to Suffering…

The creator of man was greed,
For countless lives this was his drive.
With Ignorance at its helm, it grows!
No end for it, until he knows...



Forwarded by a wise friend.

Have a nice day!


  Friendship is the Greatest *
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-)
  .... 


#92189 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:13 am 
Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, ch 5, no 5.  nilovg 
  Dear friends,

Right understanding of the difference between ultimate truth and
conventional truth can condition the arising of right awareness of
one reality at a time. There is no self who can cause the arising of
sati, but if there are conditions for its arising understanding of
paramattha dhammas can grow.

Is it beneficial to know ultimate truth? We may wonder whether it is
necessary to develop more understanding of such realities as seeing
and hearing. It is most beneficial to develop right understanding of
all realities of our daily life. On account of what we experience
through the six doors many defilements arise: we are attached, we
have aversion, we are stingy or jealous, we may even commit ill deeds
and at such moments there are no loving kindness and compassion, we
do not think of other people’s happiness. It is necessary to know our
many defilements so that we shall develop more kusala. We should not
only know our good and bad qualities, but also seeing, visible
object, hearing, sound and all the other realities which appear
through the six doors. We should know when we are living in the world
of concepts, when we are daydreaming and quite absorbed in the
objects we experience. Right understanding of the realities of our
life is the only way to be less enslaved to our     dreams.

When I was running in the woods and enjoying nature I was lost in
dreams and at such moments there was no understanding of realities.
However, everything we enjoy is subject to change. The next day one
can be in hospital, this is life. The Buddha said that we should
often contemplate old age, sickness and death, the variableness of
things, kamma and vipåka. We should realize the impermanence of all
conditioned realities. Seeing at this moment is conditioned. There
can only be seeing if there are eyesense and visible object. What
arises because of conditions has to fall away again, it does not
last. Everything in life is very temporary. When people pay us
compliments and say nice things to us we are pleased. When they are
unkind to us we are sad. When we look at a beautiful sunset we are
pleased, when we watch an accident we have aversion. The realities of
life are beyond control, they cannot be all the time as we would like
them to be. We are so taken in by the world of conventional truth
that we do not know what is really there when we listen to what
people say, when we look at nature or watch an accident. There are
only realities which appear through the six doorways. There is
hearing, there is sound, there is aversion, there is attachment, but
there are no people there. Realities arise because of their
appropriate conditions and then fall away immediately. When we see
something pleasant, it is the result of a deed committed in the past,
it is conditioned by kamma. We cannot avoid unpleasant results, they
are conditioned already. There is no “I” who experiences an
unpleasant result, and   there are no other people who cause that
unpleasant result. There is no me, no he, only different nåmas and
rúpas which arise because of their own conditions and then fall away
again. When we develop right understanding we shall be more patient
when unpleasant things happen to us and we shall be more tolerent
towards other people.

******

Nina.



#92190 From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:16 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching?  sarahprocter... 
  Hi Phil (Howard & all),

--- On Fri, 31/10/08, sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
>P: ...I was thinking of something that is a stock phrase, often repeated in the
suttanta.
...
>S: Take a look at these recent messages of Han's, & Jon's old one and see if
this isn't what you're after....
....
S: Somehow the links I'd included didn't make it....(that's what happens when I
post past my bedtime:-). Here they are:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91178
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91748

In any case, since then I see Alex provided just the right quote.

Btw, big excitement today at Big Wave Bay because all the 'gentle' surfers
caught up in the murder have been released on bail with a reduced charge of
'injury with intent'. They'll have a High Court trial later. A guy we don't know
from the village (not a surfer, Phil!) remains locked up on the murder charge.

The irony is that Nelson and the surfers are banned from Big Wave Bay, the only
surfing spot on Hong Kong island, although (I didn't mention), 4 were released a
week or two ago on no charges. Nelson's also lost his job. I called him and am
taking him out for breakfast on Monday to a quiet spot in town, hopefully for a
good chat. As Phil has been saying, I don't think we'll get onto seeing and
visible object, but perhaps at least we may get onto the dangers of alcohol and
drugs, friendliness to all, consideration for others and a few related topics.
If you or Howard have any particular suggestions, please let me know. Obviously
I don't want to come over too 'heavy', so will probably just ask him what he's
been reflecting on and give positive reinforcement to anything along the right
tracks.

Metta,

Sarah
====== 


#92191 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:16 am 
Subject: Series Survey Quotes  nilovg 
  Dear friends

Do we apply the Dhamma with perseverance and courage, and are we
inspired and gladdened because of it? We can take courage and be
inspired when kusala citta arises. Some people may be unhappy, they
may worry about it that they are becoming older and that sati arises
very seldom. When someone worries the citta is akusala. We should not
because of the Dhamma worry, or have akusala cittas. The Buddha
taught the Dhamma so that people would be encouraged to apply it, to
develop it with perseverance and gladness, and be inspired by it. All
akusala arises because of conditions, there is no self who can
prevent its arising. When akusala citta has already arisen, we should
not be downhearted, but we can take courage, and if there can be
awareness of the characteristic of akusala which appears we can be
inspired by the Dhamma. If we investigate the characteristic of
akusala dhamma which appears at that moment, we shall know that it is
not a being, not a person or self. We can clearly see that at the
moment of awareness there is no akusala, that we are not downhearted.
If one does not take akusala for self one will not be disturbed nor
discouraged because of it.
Akusala dhamma arises because of conditions, and when it has arisen,
we should, instead of worry about it again and again, be aware of its
characteristic, investigate it and understand it as not self. This is
the only way to have less akusala and to eventually eradicate it.
When satipatthåna is developed people will come to know what it means
to be inspired, gladdened and purified because of the benefit
acquired from the realization of the Dhamma. They will experience
that the truth of the Dhamma they realize is purifying and that it is
to their benefit. We shall know this when the characteristics of
realities can be known as they are.

********
Nina.



#92192 From: "sprlrt" <sprlrt@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 1:45 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta  sprlrt 
  Hi James (Sarah)

I'd be surprised to find conflicts between what KS says and what's
actually in the tipitaka, but I'm not surprised to find out that there
are conflicts between what KS says and some translations (in english
or other languages) of the tipitaka.
Also, I write about what I understand (or misunderstand) of the
tipitaka, mainly but not exclusively from KS writings and talks.

Alberto


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <buddhatrue@...>
wrote:
.....
>
> Take for example this sutta:
>

> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html
> 


#92193 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:00 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta  nilovg 
  Dear Alberto,
Op 1-nov-2008, om 7:59 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven:

> And since samma-magga, patipatti and satipatthana are one and the same
> thing, some degree of 'anattaness' is required even before
> vipassana-nana stages, right from the start of patipatti, and to be
> acquired through pariyatti.
--------
N: This is absolutely correct. I remember a discussion long ago with
the late Ven. Dhammadhara: he said the same. One begins to
understand: this is nama, this is rupa. What does this mean? It is
nama, not self, it is rupa, not self. One begins to understand that
what we take for self are only nama and rupa.
If we do not understand that sati is anatta and cannot be directed,
induced, manipulated, there will be the wrong practice, the wrong
Path, micchaa magga.
As to the English translations of the suttas one may misunderstand as
contradictory of what Kh Sujin says, it is mainly a matter of
interpretation, more so than translation. When someone has a certain
view he will highlight passages in a certain way.
Best is to check in how far is there agreement with Vinaya, Sutta and
Abhidhamma. When one has no regard of the Abhidhamma, one will read
the suttas differently.
Nina.



#92194 From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:35 am 
Subject: Re: [dsg] Present moment  nilovg 
  Dear Lukas,
I am glad to hear from you. I am thinking of your picture in a Polish
street with these typical houses you find in that part of Europe.
Just dreaming on account of visible object. At such a moment taking
concepts for real.
Op 31-okt-2008, om 22:52 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven:

> I think a lot about things, concepts and there is this strong belive
> all is real. Can we stop it?
-------
N: No, not at all, it is conditioned. For aeons we accumulated such
belief. It is not realistic to think that one can get rid of this
immediately. But, thanks to the Dhamma we have learnt that the world
of concepts is different from the world of ultimate realities.
Slowly, slowly we can learn the difference: we can think of concepts
and we do all the time. But, nama and rupa are realities that can be
directly experienced when they appear one at a time, without the need
to name them. We can learn the difference between realities and
concepts and then we go into the right direction.
--------
>
> L: What about our body? Can we feel pain? Or is it another concept?
-------
N: We learn that what we call body are only rupa elements that arise
and fall away. From head to toe all these rupas arise and then fall
away immediately. Pain is nama, the body itself does not feel
anything. But there are conditions for pain when hardness, heat,
motion or pressure impinge on the bodysense which is all over the body.
--------
>
> L:I am busy now, cant time to listen. There is thinking about daily
> activities all the time. This kind of thinking takes all my attention.
> How can there be right understending develop?
> How can sati arise in such circumstances?
----------
N: What circumstances of life we are in is all conditioned. Kamma
conditions seeing, hearing and the other sense impressions and the
accumulated kusala or akusala condition our reactions, our thinking.
What you learnt about the Dhamma is never lost, and understanding
that was acquired will develop. If we wish for sati and pa~n~naa now
there is clinging to my sati, my pa~n~naa. This is very human, we all
have such inclinations. But it is good to know that this does not
help. It is counter productive.
Of course your work takes all your attention, but the fact that you
posted today also indicates that you do not forget the Dhamma. It
really helps to understand that also moments of forgetfulness are
only namas that are conditioned, not my forgetfulness.
---------
>
> L: When I am busy I dont think about Dhamma. How can panja arise in
> such
> moments?
-------
N: It can, but not yet when it is not firm enough. Listening more,
considering more, and then: no worry when it will arise. It is
conditioned, anatta, it cannot be made to arise.
--------
>
> L: What is a diffrence between moments of magga, and moments of pala?
--------
N: Lokuttara maggacittas are lokuttara kusala cittas experiencing
nibbaana and eradicating defilements in accordance with the stage of
enlightenment that is reached. Phalacittas are the results of the
magga-cittas, lokuttara vipaakacittas, experiencing nibbaana. They
arise immediately in the same process.
-------
>
> L:Which parts of eightfold-path are cetasikas?
------
N: all of them are cetasikas, and that means: arising because of
conditions, not self, beyond control.
-------
Nina.



#92195 From: han tun <hantun1@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:37 am 
Subject: Mindfulness of Death (1)  hantun1 
  Dear James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Howard, Tep,

As promised to James, I will write a little bit at a time, my attitude towards
death. I started to study and practice seriously the Teachings of the Buddha
quite late in my life. Maybe because of my age at that time, old age and death
fascinated me from the very beginning, and I read those suttas that depict old
age and death, and drew samvega from them. Today, I will quote DN 17
Mahaasudassana Sutta.

When King Mahaasudassana was nearing his death, he asked his men to bring out
the gold couch and put it down among the gold palm-trees, and lay down on the
couch adopting the lion-posture on his right side with one foot on the other,
mindful and clearly aware. Queen Subhaddaa, approaching the King, and not
wanting him to die, pleaded with the King as follows. [I am quoting the texts
from A Translation of the Digha Nikaaya by Maurice Walshe.]

--------------------

2.10. ‘Then Queen Subhaddaa thought: “King Mahaasudassana’s faculties are
purified, his complexion is clear and bright, oh – I hope he is not dead!�
So she said to him: “Sire, of your eighty-four thousand cities, Kusaavatii is
the chief. Make a wish, arouse the desire to live there!� Thus, reminding him
of all his royal possessions (as verse 5) she exhorted him to wish to stay
alive.

2.11. ‘At this, King Mahaasudassana said to the Queen: “For a long time,
Queen, you spoke pleasing, delightful, attractive words to me, but now at this
last time your words have been unpleasing, undelightful, unattractive to me.�
“Sire, how then am I to speak to you?�

‘This is how you should speak: “All things that are pleasing and attractive
are liable to change, to vanish, to become otherwise. Do not, Sire, die filled
with longing. To die filled with longing is painful and blameworthy. Of your
eighty-four thousand cities, Kusaavatii is the chief: abandon desire, abandon
the longing to live with them … Of your eighty-four thousand palaces, Dhamma
is the chief: abandon desire, abandon the longing to live there …� (and so
on throughout, as verse 5).

2.12. ‘At this, Queen Subhaddaa cried out and burst into tears. Then, wiping
away her tears, she said: “Sire, all things that are pleasing and attractive
are liable to change … Do not, Sire, die filled with longing …’

2.13. Soon after this, King Mahaasudassana died …

--------------------

Han: I like the following passage very much.

[All things that are pleasing and attractive are liable to change, to vanish, to
become otherwise. Do not, Sire, die filled with longing. To die filled with
longing is painful and blameworthy.]

[sabbeheva deva piyehi manaapehi naanaabhaavo vinaabhaavo a~n~nathaabhaavo. Maa
kho tva.m deva saapekkho kaalamakaasi. Dukkhaa saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa
garahitaa ca saapekkhassa kaala.mkiriyaa.]

Han: The above advice stays with me. When my time comes would I be able to die
without longing? I do not know. I can only hope I do so.

Respectfully,
Han 


#92196 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:51 am 
Subject: Re: Suttas that urge Mindfulness of Death 1 AN 3:35  jonoabb 
  Hi Han

> Dear Jon (James, Phil, Nina, Sarah, Howard, Tep),
>
> In Jaataka 354, I like best the mother’s reply:
>
> "Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go.
> Even as he came he went, what cause is here for woe?
> No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead.
> Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread."
>
> Although it was the reply by the mother for her dead son, I think
it is applicable to other loved ones as well, like husband and wife.
I came down to Rangoon from Upper Burma to study medicine, and I
moved into a friend’s house which was next to my wife’s house.
That was how we met. I entered into her life without her invitation,
and I will be leaving her without her permission or without her
asking me to leave. I think most of husbands and wives are chance
encounters. I think it is a part of kamma vipaaka. Because of past
kamma we meet, and when that kamma is exhausted we depart. So there
is no point to be grieved. We meet and we go away from one another in
the endless journey of samsara.

Thanks for sharing these reflections and the personal snippets about
your life.

Yes, the mother's reply particularly struck me, too.

I like your observation that "Because of past kamma we meet, and when
that kamma is exhausted we depart."  It also applies to every contact
we have with other people, I suppose.  If only we could keep it in
mind more often!

> I agree with Nina that the person who stays behind suffers most
(which was also echoed by Howard). If I die first I will have my wife
beside me holding my hand when I die. But when she dies later I will
not be near her. Of course, she will have her children and grand-
children near her, but it will not be the same. That’s why in my
selfish way, I want to die first. But with consideration for her, I
think it will be better if she goes first. But as I have said before,
nobody knows who will go first!
>

As you say, nobody knows who will go first (or when).

On the subject of recollection on death generally, I'm inclined to
think it's more about the fragility of life and the urgency of the
development of insight, than about what's going to happen to us and
our loved one when we die.  As Nina mentioned in another thread, even
when reflecting on the dhamma, our natural tendencies are such that
our thoughts inevitably turn to ourselves ;-))

Jon 


#92197 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:55 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  jonoabb 
  Hi Howard

> You both feel that it's  important to avoid terminology that
connotes
> self, and that the use of  such terminology leads to wrong view.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     Then why does every other ordinary-language  utterance by a
meditator on
> DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies  self-view!!"?
Buddha forbid,
> it would seem, if anyone should ever speak of  willing something or
doing
> anything at all for that matter unless it is quoting  KS!

I'm struggling to relate this to our discussion.  In any event, I
don't recall ever saying to you (or anyone) that something said in a
post to me implies self-view on your/their part.

As far as talk of "willing" something is concerned, the only question
I can recall raising with you is whether that would necessarily be
kusala (and if not then how could it be the intended meaning of the
Buddha).

>     Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is  affected by
the
> terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know that!

Am I allowed to say I disagree? ;-))  I have never before heard it
suggested that how a person thinks is affected by the terminology
that the person uses in speech.  I can't even begin to understand
what that means exactly.  Would you mind giving an example or two.
I'm probably just being dense (I'd say it was too much Fijian kava,
except that I haven't had any ;-)).

> In  fact, you and others
> here who share your interpretation of the Dhamma, when it  suits
you stand on
> your head to resist others using "personal"  terminology." Jon, a
drop of
> introspection might show you that you are not  always "playing
fair."

Personal *terminology* has never been something I question, once it
has been explained as such; personal *ideas* about the way things
are, however, is another matter.

> I don't think this is an idea that appears in the  texts.
> -----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     Jon, have you ordered a bumper sticker to that  effect? ;-)
> -----------------------------------------------

You're correct that it's a comment I make quite often ;-))

> Nor do I
> see the Buddha avoiding conventional atta-sounding terminology
('I',
> 'self', etc).
> -----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     But YOU insist on it - when it suits you,  as I pointed out.

We're talking about terminology, not about ideas/views.  I cannot
recall ever picking someone up because they expressed an idea using
conventional "I" or "me" terms or such like.

>     Such language is sometimes easy to avoid and  sometimes not so
easy. Any
> Indo-European language, being noun-based, offers  difficulty in
avoiding it.
> Often the use is rather harmless, but other times it  is far from
harmless,
> reinforcing our tendency to reify, and the repeated use of  agency
terminology
> when applied, in particular, to conditioned paramattha  dhammas,
which the
> Buddha has repeatedly said are anicca, dukkha, and anatta,  and as
insubstantial as
> can be, is very harmful in that respect.

Yes, I understand this is your argument.  But I'm not aware of any
basis for it in the teachings.  And for that reason I question its
validity or at least its relevance to the development of the path.

> If  you are suggesting that wrong view can be avoided, or right
view
> developed,  by careful choice of terminology I would disagree.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     What's being suggested is that how one speaks  affects how one
thinks,
> and that care must be taken in speaking for that reason  among
others. That, and
> nothing more, has been suggested.
> ---------------------------------------------------

Could you perhaps spell out the connection as you see it?  Thanks.

>   That's
> a similar idea to the one that by being restrained in  how we act
we
> can develop more kusala.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     In the bat of an eye and a movement of the lip, you  have
negated the
> very obvious psychological fact that actions (including  speech)
affect
> attititude. Have you read that denial in the "texts," Jon? Does
the Buddha not
> repeatedly endorse intentionally speaking carefully? Does he  say
that this should
> happen only if it is unwilled? I find this position absurd,  Jon.
> -----------------------------------------------------

But that would be in the context of avoiding wrong speech, I think.
That's not what we're talking about here.

> To my understanding of the teachings,
> things are in fact the other  way around, namely, if more kusala is
> developed, one's conduct becomes  purer.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>     Actions, including speech, do affect  attitude! It is not a one-
way
> street.
> ------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Howard.  The point being urged is clear enough, but I'd like
to hear the explanation as to why it is so ;-))

Jon 


#92198 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:57 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  jonoabb 
  Hi TG

> I generally agree.  It was a very minor point I was "playing"
with.  It is
> fine to employ "conventional speech" as long as one is aware  of
it.  However,
> if done in here, there are many in here who will accuse  you of
self view or
> being deceived by conceptual illusions/delusions.   There's no
winning.  LOL

Well I'm afraid I can't speak for others.  As I said in my message to
Howard just now, I'm interested in ideas rather than mere
terminology.

Jon 


#92199 From: "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> 
Date: Sat Nov 1, 2008 2:59 am 
Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey Quote  jonoabb 
  Hi TG

> Howard:
> Then why does every other ordinary-language utterance by a
meditator on
> DSG meet with a variant of "Oh, but that implies  self-view!!"DSG
meet with a
> v
> it would seem, if anyone should ever  speak of willing something or
doing
> anything at all for that matter unless  it is quoting KS!
> Now, Jon, you know darn well that how we think is  affected by the
> terminology we use! There is no *doubt* that you know  that! In
fact, you and
> others
> here who share your interpretation of the  Dhamma, when it suits
you stand on
> your head to resist others using  "personal" terminology.your head
to resi
> introspection might show you  that you are not always "playing
fair."
> ..........................................................
>
> TG:  Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad to have been the cause for you to have something to rejoice
over, TG ;-))

Now would you do me a favour and explain what Howard's point in the
above is!  Thanks.

Jon