#92800 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mentality and materiality nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 21-nov-2008, om 11:54 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > How can we know nama? ------- N: No lack opf nama in a day: seeing, hearing, akusala citta. One begins to understand what seeing is, it is just the experience of what is visible, and it is not I who sees. This can sink in and gradually one can become familiar with different namas in one's life. -------- > L: How can we know rupa? ------- N: When it appears, and it appears now: hardness, visib;e object, sound. Rupa does not know anything, it is different from nama. --------- > L: Thinking of nama is different from experiencing the > characteristic of > nama, which is real. -------- N: Thinking in the correct way of nama and rupa leads to more understanding and that is the goal. When the time is ripe direct experience will arise but nobody can direct this, it is anatta. -------- > L: What are the conditions to seeing nama as nama, rupa as rupa? ------- N: It is the task of pa~n~naa, and wishing for it is counteractive. All we are concerned with now is more understanding. It will, by condiitons, lead to seeing nama as nama, rupa as rupa. --------- > L: Even when there is sati and panja, there are still conditions for > taking it for self. sati-sampajana is the most of each kusala but it > still can be an object for akusala. ------ N: Yes, when we are hoping for it. But at the moment of understanding a dhamma there is no akusala at the same time. --------- > > L: dear frinds there is so much thinking about stories and concepts in > daily life with akusala. ------- N: See my post to Howard. There is a wonderful opportunity here to study one's akusala thinking. This makes the development of satipatthana very natural. We do not try to change anything, but to understand it. It is good not feeling compelled or forced, it makes so tense. There is kusala viriya with understanding, it is perseverance on the way. We need viriya, energy and perseverance, not giving in to discouragement. Samsara is very long. There is viriya with all 37 factors leading to enlightenment, as Kh Sujin explained on the recording I heard today. The four satipatthanas have to be developed with ardour (atapi), understanding and sati (sampajana, satima). Ardour, this is viriya. Changing from akusala to kusala: not without the 37 factors of enlightenment. The four right efforts: viriya arising together with understanding that considers the characteristics of realities. Nina. #92801 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7. no 6 nilovg Dear friends, An insincere inclination inhibits the development of satipatthåna. Right understanding can know whether we are sincere or not, whether there is development in the right way or not. Do we take our intellectual understanding for direct knowledge of realities and do we believe that there is nothing more to be developed? This will hinder the right practice of the eightfold Path. There are many misconceptions which can hinder its development. Do we have certain fixed ideas about sati, ideas of what it should be like? Do we, without noticing it, confuse sati with an idea of calm and peace? Some people find sati “a very special experience”, but then there is clinging. Sati is only a reality, not something special, and we should not hold on to it. Are we sure about the characteristic of sati or are we merely thinking of an idea about sati? In the beginning there cannot be clear understanding of any reality, and thus, when we think that we know sati as it is we may mislead ourselves. When we are too preoccupied with what sati is like, we forget to be aware of all realities that are appearing already, such as seeing, sound or hearing. We may have prejudices against particular objects and we may not like to be aware of them. Someone thought that when she was practising satipatthåna she should not recognize her parents or friends, or look at her watch, since she was then thinking of concepts. Are we doing the same, do we want to avoid thinking of concepts? We were walking around the great Stupa of Anurådhapura, the “Ruvanvelisaya”, and then there was thunder. The rainy season had begun. I was paying attention to the sound of thunder and thinking of a concept. I tried to experience just sound, but the concept of thunder seemed to come up immediately. What was really happening? I was thinking of a concept and trying to avoid thinking of it, because I wanted to know just sound. We should not resist being aware of the reality that appears. When there is thinking of thunder it does not matter; the thinking can be studied in order to know it as only a reality that is conditioned. At another time, when we do not try to focus on sound, sound may appear and then it can be known as only a reality that arises because of the appropriate conditions. There is no self who can cause the arising of any reality and we can verify this in daily life. We should not try to live only in the world of ultimate truth because then there is clinging again. We cannot change what appears now. ****** Nina. #92802 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/21/2008 9:27:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 21-nov-2008, om 14:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > just before the moment of path-consciousness, "in the same > process of cittas, one of the three is penetrated in relation to > the dhamma that > appears, and this can be any reality, even lobha." It seems that > you are > saying here that there can be a citta in which wisdom can penetrate > the anicca > or the dukkha or the anatta of the known object of consciousness , > even with > that object being lobha. But that would seem to make that mind > state kusala in > part (due to the cetasika of p~n~na) and akusala (due to the > lobha). Can you > explain this apparent problem, Nina? ------- N: First there is a process of cittas accompanied by lobha, and when that has fallen away, mahaakusala cittas with understanding and awareness of lobha can arise, and its characterisric can be penetrated: it is seen as impermanent, dukkha or anatta, and in that same process enlightenment can occur, lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbaana can follow. Actually, it can be just like now: lobha arises so often, even slightly, we like all the objects seen, heard, etc. and when that process has fallen away, lobha can be object of awareness and understanding. Akusala cannot occur at the same time as kusala, but it can be object of understanding. That is also shown in the satipatthanasutta under mindfulness of dhammas, where the hindrances and other akusala dhammas are included as objects of satipatthana. This is an important point, because some people think that akusala should not be an object of understanding. It must, otherwise it cannot be eradicated. Instead of feeling annoyed about one's akusala it is an excellent material to be studied. We do not try to change akusala, but to understand it. Nina. ========================= Thank you. :-) Okay, I get the idea. To make an analogy (and only an analogy), it is like being punched in the arm and immediately afterwards feeling the pain - that pain pertaining to and conditioned by the punching. So, the greed is present and then ceases, but, while yet present, conditions an immediately subsequent insight into an aspect (anicca, dukkha, or anatta) of the just-passed greed. With metta, Howard #92803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:02 am Subject: Series Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, Satipatthåna is the dhamma which is aware of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors, such as the dhamma appearing through the eyes, visible object, when there is seeing at this moment. Then satipatthåna can be naturally aware and paññå can begin to study and investigate the true nature of nåma and rúpa. Q. : How should we develop satipatthåna when we are seeing? S. : When there is seeing you can be aware and realize that what appears to seeing is a type of reality which only appears through the eyes. When we see hairs, a table, a chair, a pillar or a hall, we should know that what is seen is in reality only that which appears through the eyes. It does not appear through the ears, the nose, the tongue or the bodysense. When paññå has not been developed to the degree of knowing the difference between the characteristics of nåma and rúpa, this stage of insight cannot arise. Q. : I keep on thinking about all that has been explained, but I cannot be aware of nåma and rúpa in the right way. Please, could you explain to me how to be aware? S. : When there is seeing which experiences an object through the eyes, can you at that moment investigate the characteristic of the dhamma which naturally appears? It is essential to know how understanding should be developed, so that later on paññå can become accomplished to the degree of the first stage of insight, knowledge of the difference between nama and rúpa. First of all sati can be aware and study the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa which are naturally appearing through any of the doorways. Awareness is different from thinking about nåma and rúpa, from theoretical understanding which stems from listening to the Dhamma. Awareness of realities is not developed if you, while seeing, think about it with agitation, worry and nervousness; if you think with agitation that what appears is rúpa and that seeing is nåma. At such a moment there is no investigation, no study of a characteristic of rúpa or a characteristic of nåma. It is necessary to have first correct understanding of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa so that satipatthåna can arise and be directly aware of them. ****** Nina. #92804 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi TG, Alex, All TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama A: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankhara) with thoughts (concepts/pannati), thinking is what experiences thoughts, thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. Alberto #92805 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Alberto (and TG & Alex) - In a message dated 11/21/2008 11:15:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: Hi TG, Alex, All TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama A: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankhara) with thoughts (concepts/pannati), thinking is what experiences thoughts, thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. Alberto =============================== Thinking certainly occurs. It is a mental process. What and where "thoughts" are, however, I haven't a clue. I frankly don't believe in thoughts - just in thinking. With metta, Howard #92806 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Alberto In a message dated 11/21/2008 9:34:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama A: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankharaA: I t thoughts (concepts/pannati)thoughts (concepts/pannati), th thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. Alberto ..................................................................... TG: Thoughts are the primary content of thinking. I don't understand your view of them being separate entities. But I don't believe in "entities," much less "separate ones," irregardless. Well I wouldn't say I'm mixing them up, but we just have a different understanding. Take care. TG #92807 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/21/2008 9:45:07 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Thinking certainly occurs. It is a mental process. What and where "thoughts" are, however, I haven't a clue. I frankly don't believe in thoughts - just in thinking. With metta, Howard TG: Next you're going to tell me you don't believe in Beatles. Where will this madness end. ;-) TG #92808 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... Hi Alberto In a message dated 11/21/2008 12:22:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: Hi TG, Alex, All I think that, in Dhamma terms, philosophy employ concepts of concepts (avijjamana pannati) to explain other concepts/pannati, while the Dhamma employ concepts of non-concepts/Dhamma employ concepts of non-conc explain the dhammas, which are real and not concepts/pannati Alberto .................................. TG: And then there are the concepts that say that all concepts miss the mark. Those are a few of my favorite concepts. TG #92809 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/21/2008 2:42:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: As you suggest, the Four Great Elements cannot arise independently of each other, but always arise together in a kalapa (group), along with at least four other rupas. However while these rupas always condition each other by sahajata paccaya (conascence condition), outside the body, only temperature produces such kalapas of rupas. It is in this sense it is given as the 'sole' cause of their arising, although as you and Howard rightly point out, there is always more than one condition at work, such as conascence condition in this example. I appreciated the clarification on this point. Metta, Sarah ................................................ TG: So basically what I get from this is you're just copying what the books says, believing in it, but have no idea about how it words. Is that about right? TG OUT #92810 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/21/2008 11:51:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/21/2008 9:45:07 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Thinking certainly occurs. It is a mental process. What and where "thoughts" are, however, I haven't a clue. I frankly don't believe in thoughts - just in thinking. With metta, Howard TG: Next you're going to tell me you don't believe in Beatles. Where will this madness end. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, who's left? Paul & Ringo? I suppose that because of Paul, I still believe! LOL! ----------------------------------------------- TG ==================== With believable metta, Howard #92811 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa khandha upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/21/2008 11:57:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard ------------------------------------- Howard: TG, I assume you meant to write "Hi Sarah"? ------------------------------------- In a message dated 11/21/2008 2:42:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: As you suggest, the Four Great Elements cannot arise independently of each other, but always arise together in a kalapa (group), along with at least four other rupas. However while these rupas always condition each other by sahajata paccaya (conascence condition), outside the body, only temperature produces such kalapas of rupas. It is in this sense it is given as the 'sole' cause of their arising, although as you and Howard rightly point out, there is always more than one condition at work, such as conascence condition in this example. I appreciated the clarification on this point. Metta, Sarah ................................................ TG: So basically what I get from this is you're just copying what the books says, believing in it, but have no idea about how it words. Is that about right? TG OUT ============================ With metta, Howard #92812 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott You haven't understood it properly. In a message dated 11/21/2008 6:18:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Bh. Bodhi renders the passage: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection..pe Iti kho bhikkhave dhammaavadhamme abhisandenti, dhammaavadhamme paripuurenti apaaraapaara.paripuurenti apaara Scott: The sutta excerpt is brought in, as I understand it, to support the view that there is no 'on/off'; or 'arising and falling away'; or, essentially, no truth to the Abhidhamma assertion that a state arises and falls away prior to the arising of a subsequent state. The view suggests, rather, that states 'swell' or simply remain but demonstrate some ongoing and persistent tendency towards increase while remaining present. See below: ............................................... TG: Nothing remains present. Things are continually "becoming-otherwise" as the Buddha states so many times. Which BTW, perfectly corresponds to the Sutta passage in question. The idea that the ceasing of something is the cause of the next thing os a COMPLETE violation of the Buddha's principles of Dependent Arising...This being, that is....this not being, that is not, with the ceasing of this, that ceases. .................................................... TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: So, the above argument suggests a very fast gradual swelling and receding of 'conditions.and receding of 'conditions.' Again, 'co view, as if they are something other than the way one state or another has an effect on one state or another. The excerpt from the CetanaakaraniiyasutCetanaakaraniiyasutta.m. is brought in t The sutta begins thus: "For one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is no need for an act of will: 'May non-remorse arise in me!' It is a natural law, monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." "Siilavato bhikkhave siilasampannassa na cetanaaya kara.naaya.m 'avippa.tisaaro me uppajjatu' ti. Dhammataa esaa bhikkhave ya.m saalavato saalasampannassa avippa.tisaaro uppajjati. Scott: The same pattern is repeated in relation to 'one who is glad of heart' and 'joy;' 'one of serene body' and 'happiness;' 'one who is happy' and 'concentration;happy' and 'concentration;' 'one who is con seeing things as they really are,' etc. The context, then, shows that the Buddha is teaching about how it is a 'natural law' ("Dhammataa (f.)..conformity to the Dhamma-niyaama (see niyaama), fitness, propriety; a general rule, higher law, cosmic law, general practice, regular phenomenon, usual habit...") that the presence of one state is condition of the arising of another. The sutta isn't meant to demonstrate that there are alterations in persistent states. ................................................................. TG: The Buddha often states it as -- arising, changing while persisting, ceasing. The "changing while persisting," an awkward expression/translation, is not meant to say "something continues to have presence," but merely that some continues to be "recognizable" as the same quality. Yet is continues to change...in accordance to affecting conditions. Flowing and altering and changing. Just as this Sutta indicates. ....................................................................... The key words seem to be 'abhisandenti' and 'paripuurenti.The key wo PTS PED: "1. The primary meaning of abhi is that of taking possession and mastering, as contained in E. coming by and over -- coming, thus literally having the function of (a) facing and aggressing = towards, against, on to, at (see II. 1, a); and (b) mastering = over, along over, out over, on top of (see II. 1, b). 2. Out of this is developed the fig. meaning of increasing, i. e., an intensifying of the action implied in the verb...II. Lit. Meaning. -- 1. As single pref.: (a) against, to, on to, at.." "Sandati [syand; Dhtp 149: passavane] to flow..." "sandaapeti to cause to flow..." "Puureti [Caus. to fill...puuraapeti to cause to fill..." Scott: The sense of 'flowing onto' or 'increasing' or 'strengthening' or 'developing' seems to be meant here. The meaning is a figurative - i.e. not literal - one. The view takes this literally to refer to states that persist and increase over time (or very quickly). .................................................................... TG: Its amazing how your scholarship time and again shows exactly what I am stating. Yet you will, as always, figure out a way to escape its truth and relevancy in order to stay attached to your preconceived views. This "view" is exactly what is says...flowing, causing to flow. Figurative is good. Figurative is necessary. As no concept can state with precision how phenomena actually transpire because phenomena are analogical ... and concepts are static. ......................................................... TG: "...I don't see a 'digital type' on/off world. I see conditions as gradually swelling and receding...though very fast perhaps." Scott: The sutta is referring, at least, to proximity and contiguity conditions (anantara and samanantara-conditions (anantara and sam ........................................................ TG: The Sutta is NOT referring to proximity or contiguity conditions. That is a commentarial interpretation. The Sutta is referring to flowing and swelling conditions! Its amazing how dishonest you are with yourself when time and again you translate things that support what I am stating...and then twist it around to suit a particular Abhidhamma style outlook. So, I've proven my points time and again...through your own scholarship to boot....yet you won't concede what is properly said as properly said. So it is pointless ever having a discussion with you with any expectation it will be well taken or considered. You're just a pure ideologue. I'll give you credit for one thing, at least you deal with the issue, irregardless of whether you make an attempt to understand it or not outside of your ideological point of view. Others in here simply skirt the issue at hand and make up one that suits their fancy. Either way, both outcomes lead to a wasteland. TG OUT #92813 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Dear Alberto, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi TG, Alex, All > > TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama > > A: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankhara) with > thoughts (concepts/pannati), thinking is what experiences thoughts, > thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate > entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. > > Alberto Buddha has said that ALL sankharas are impermament, ALL Dhammas are not self. Those who believe that will reject the notion of concepts being permanent, self, etc etc. Some almost sound like certain "Buddhist" attavadins who posit a Self that is beyond all Dhamma, thus not being covered by "Sabbe Dhamma anatta". With best wishes, #92814 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi Howard (and TG & Alex) K. Sujin says that the 6th door, the mind, is the most difficult to understand, if that's of any consolation to you. Alberto #92815 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sprlrt Dear Alex, TG, All Back to square one... I've got a work deadline coming up and I have to stop writing & reading posts for a while, I'll write to you later... Alberto #92816 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Howard My take... I believe time is merely a measurement of change and therefore merely a "yardstick" and not a "thing." Phenomena are momentums that are systematically propagated by the Four Great Elements: (Four Great Momentums -- Friction (symbol-fire), Coalescence (symbol-water), Dispersion (symbol-air), and Firmness (symbol-earth). Mentality is momentum as well ... and being affected by the same. Sutta -- "...and this consciousness is supported by and bound up with...(the Four Great Elements)" The systematic interaction of these momentums is producing the things we experience. The "interaction" is continually altering phenomena. What has been altered is considered -- the past...its gone. The present is -- the current grinding/flowing of momentums. The future is -- what the grinding momentums will produce. I think the "time issue" not too critical. But there is a flowing change in progress, all we know of is disintegrating, death is coming, attachment causes suffering, detachment can escape or reduce suffering ... depending on how complete it is. TG OUT #92817 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:14 am Subject: Re: Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > >As I ponder time, I find it an impossible-to-fathom mystery, and I >find myself vacillating within fractions of a second between >viewing it as mere illusion and viewing it as real. (I laugh at how >this sentence itself presumes time.) Can you please clarify what do you mean "time as illusion" vs time being"real". >Here is the problem, as best I can formulate it in speech: >It is crystal clear to me that "the past" is illusory and non- >existent. (We may say and think that various events DID occur, but >when that "did" is examined, I can't honestly say what it could >mean. There is just the thinking now.) The future is also clearly >non-existent I wish I had your certainty. The thing about time is that, is it relative or absolute? The most modern SCIENTIFIC & emperic experiments (as opposed to philosophy) show that it is relative. That throws a monkey wrench into the wheels of there being one absolute present "NOW". Furthermore, is time a dimension? You probably heard of space-time? Now what if time is like a dimension? Just like relative to Bob in New York, Zimbabwe is not seen, so for some guy living in Zimbabwe the New York isn't seen. What I am trying to say is that relative to us, 500BC is past and is 'gone'. But for someone living in 500BC, the now is 500BC and 2008 AD is the future. The time may be a 4th dimension from which one can move like in 3D space. Time travel to the future IS possible and is frequently done even today, though by tiny amount. According to Theory of General Relativity (or whatever else) if an object (such as a spaceship) is moving fast enough, the time slows down RELATIVE to the astronaut. So the present for the astranaut is NOT the present for people on Earth. Time travel in significant duration to the future IS possible. There is even a remote possibility of time travel to the past. Now, how could there be time travel to the "past" which isn't supposed to exist in some absolute now? Only if the past existed could there be time travel to it. I think it is less likely that time travel to the past recreated entire Universe as it was in the past. Again, time may be like a extra dimension that theoretically could be travel in, like someone travelling from one part of the city to another. Just Some ideas & further questions. With best wishes, #92818 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta TGrand458@... ROTF In a message dated 11/21/2008 10:09:32 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, who's left? Paul & Ringo? I suppose that because of Paul, I still believe! LOL! #92819 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Alberto - In a message dated 11/21/2008 12:57:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: Hi Howard (and TG & Alex) K. Sujin says that the 6th door, the mind, is the most difficult to understand, if that's of any consolation to you. -------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for replying, but actually, I didn't feel in need of consolation. ;-) As for the mind door, I find (mind-door) introspection no more difficult than attention to anything else that arises. ------------------------------------- ================================= With metta, Howard #92820 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/21/2008 1:14:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard My take... I believe time is merely a measurement of change and therefore merely a "yardstick" and not a "thing." --------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, I quite agree that it is no thing. That doesn't remove the mystery, however. ------------------------------------------- Phenomena are momentums that are systematically propagated by the Four Great Elements: (Four Great Momentums -- Friction (symbol-fire), Coalescence (symbol-water), Dispersion (symbol-air), and Firmness (symbol-earth). Mentality is momentum as well ... and being affected by the same. Sutta -- "...and this consciousness is supported by and bound up with...(the Four Great Elements)" The systematic interaction of these momentums is producing the things we experience. The "interaction" is continually altering phenomena. What has been altered is considered -- the past...its gone. The present is -- the current grinding/flowing of momentums. The future is -- what the grinding momentums will produce. I think the "time issue" not too critical. But there is a flowing change in progress, all we know of is disintegrating, death is coming, attachment causes suffering, detachment can escape or reduce suffering ... depending on how complete it is. ========================== With metta, Howard #92821 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/21/2008 1:15:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > >As I ponder time, I find it an impossible-to-fathom mystery, and I >find myself vacillating within fractions of a second between >viewing it as mere illusion and viewing it as real. (I laugh at how >this sentence itself presumes time.) Can you please clarify what do you mean "time as illusion" vs time being"real". ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm afraid that I cannot. I can't say more than I've already said. --------------------------------------------- >Here is the problem, as best I can formulate it in speech: >It is crystal clear to me that "the past" is illusory and non- >existent. (We may say and think that various events DID occur, but >when that "did" is examined, I can't honestly say what it could >mean. There is just the thinking now.) The future is also clearly >non-existent I wish I had your certainty. The thing about time is that, is it relative or absolute? The most modern SCIENTIFIC & emperic experiments (as opposed to philosophy) show that it is relative. That throws a monkey wrench into the wheels of there being one absolute present "NOW". Furthermore, is time a dimension? You probably heard of space-time? Now what if time is like a dimension? Just like relative to Bob in New York, Zimbabwe is not seen, so for some guy living in Zimbabwe the New York isn't seen. What I am trying to say is that relative to us, 500BC is past and is 'gone'. But for someone living in 500BC, the now is 500BC and 2008 AD is the future. The time may be a 4th dimension from which one can move like in 3D space. Time travel to the future IS possible and is frequently done even today, though by tiny amount. According to Theory of General Relativity (or whatever else) if an object (such as a spaceship) is moving fast enough, the time slows down RELATIVE to the astronaut. So the present for the astranaut is NOT the present for people on Earth. Time travel in significant duration to the future IS possible. There is even a remote possibility of time travel to the past. Now, how could there be time travel to the "past" which isn't supposed to exist in some absolute now? Only if the past existed could there be time travel to it. I think it is less likely that time travel to the past recreated entire Universe as it was in the past. Again, time may be like a extra dimension that theoretically could be travel in, like someone travelling from one part of the city to another. Just Some ideas & further questions. With best wishes, =========================== With metta, Howard #92822 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] age of the Buddhist canonical books nilovg Hi Alex, Op 20-nov-2008, om 22:11 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Furthermore, who exactly were the commentators? Do we have names and > info on that? -------- N: As you can read in Ven. Dhammanando's post: These originals got lost. but anyway we have Buddhaghosa's edition, containing attanomati less than 0.5%, thus personal opinion is very little. Nina. #92823 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 21-nov-2008, om 16:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > To make an analogy (and only an > analogy), it is like being punched in the arm and immediately > afterwards feeling > the pain - that pain pertaining to and conditioned by the punching. > So, the > greed is present and then ceases, but, while yet present, > conditions an > immediately subsequent insight into an aspect (anicca, dukkha, or > anatta) of the > just-passed greed. ------- N: Any comparison is difficult, because cittas are so fast. That is why the characteristic of just passed lobha can appear. Just as now: we notice that we like this or that thing, but that like is only just past, still it seems present. As to insight, this is highly developed pa~n~naa, compared to someone who shoots from far, but very fast and very precisely. Lobha conditions the insight by way of object- condition. The main condition for the arising of insight at that moment is former development of insight on and on, a long, long practice. ------- Nina. #92824 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/21/2008 2:06:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Any comparison is difficult, because cittas are so fast. That is why the characteristic of just passed lobha can appear. Just as now: we notice that we like this or that thing, but that like is only just past, still it seems present. As to insight, this is highly developed pa~n~naa, compared to someone who shoots from far, but very fast and very precisely. Lobha conditions the insight by way of object- condition. The main condition for the arising of insight at that moment is former development of insight on and on, a long, long practice. ============================ We don't know how long practice has been going on - perhaps for multiple thousands of lifetimes, or perhaps hardly at all. But one thing for sure: There can be practice now! With metta, Howard #92825 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] age of the Buddhist canonical books truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Op 20-nov-2008, om 22:11 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > Furthermore, who exactly were the commentators? Do we have names >and > info on that? > -------- > N: As you can read in Ven. Dhammanando's post: a > straight translation from the Maha-atthakatha, Maha-paccari or >Kuru?? > i (his main Sinhalese source texts) then it's atthakatha.> > These originals got lost. but anyway we have Buddhaghosa's >edition, > containing attanomati less than 0.5%, thus personal opinion is >very > little. > Nina. Buddha didn't teach in Sri Lanka! His chief disciples did not teach in Sri Lanka! He was teaching in NorthWest & North Eastern India. Buddhism came to Sri Lanka much later and thus doesn't have to be from Buddha's time. With all the best wishes, #92826 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence truth_aerator Hi TG, Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > I believe time is merely a measurement of change and therefore merely >a "yardstick" and not a "thing." What about Time Travel then? If time doesn't really exist, then how would time travel be explained? With Best Wishes, #92827 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:04 pm Subject: RE: on sneaking in "atta" through the back door. truth_aerator Dear Alberto and all, >-- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Dear Alex, TG, All > > Back to square one... > I've got a work deadline coming up and I have to stop writing & > reading posts for a while, > I'll write to you later... > > Alberto Sure. No problemo. > > > #92828 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Some Serious Questions About Arhatship & Nibbana truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > >I've been thinking a lot about time recently. I've always just >viewed it as "the flow of events," which, while possibly a valid >way to view it, really isn't much more than a throw-away line. >As I ponder time, I find it an impossible-to-fathom mystery, and I >find myself vacillating within fractions of a second between >viewing it as mere illusion and viewing it as real. (I laugh at how >this sentence itself presumes time.) When I think I get even stranger thoughts which is why it is probably good to restrain speculative thoughts not directly linked with dispassion, disenchantment, letting go, relinquishment, etc etc. As I understand it, ParaNibbana is termination of 5 khandas without any reoccurance. This has some issues. If there is really no Arahant (or worldlings) even in Samsara then it means that: a) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Samsara? b) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Nibbana? c) Arahant's 5 khandas (including citta & cetasikas) themselves do not experience paraNibbana since they have to cease first, for ParaNibbana to occur. d) ParaNibbana cannot be an "object" of cognition because it IS devoid of ALL cognition. Just as sound cannot be an object of eye, absence of consciosness cannot be an object of any internal sense base. Did anyone experience rapid unconscious state itself? The thing about full unconsciousness is that one doesn't know that one is unconscious. What may look like an unconscious person lying on the hospital bed for 1 hour, for that person 1 hour isn't felt at all. In fact one may not even notice that gap unless one is very attentive, knows what is going on and most importantly REVIEWS all the signs after emerging from unconsciousness. An Arahant who paranibbana'ed (or shall I say 5 aggregates) can't do that. So does this implies that: e) there is no knowledge that (citta, cetasika, etc) is ceased for ever? If there is no knowledge of absence (there is no citta to know that!), does it means that there IS i) Knowledge of presence (which requires) citta? Or ii) Knowledge of absence? iii) No knowledge of absence & no knowledge of presence. - What is this then? If a person is an assemblage of impersonal conditions coming together in some specific fashion and your, mine, and everyone's subjective internal vs external feeling was such as well, then there is a question: What prevents such forces from forming a new existence for an Arhat's khandas that ParaNibbana? What mechanism (which would have to be eternal) is responsible for that? IF there was something for every set of Khandas that lasted for entire Samsara which was the sole cause for subjective perspective (not to be confused with the view a sakkayaditthi) and gone out, then this could explain why a terminated process does not restart. Is there such a process? Furthermore the assumptionn of something different in each "person" could prevent another paradox. Can two or more (conventionally speaking) people be reborn as ONE being? (ie 2+ different cuti cittas having ONE patisandhi citta rebirth linking)? What was the cause of the first citta for a particular being (conventionally speaking)? What was the cause of that? (If it had no begining, no first cause or set of simulteneous ex nihilo causes) then today would have never came as it would be infinity into the future from that infinite past! Does "population" of Samsara: Stay the same, increases or Decreases? If it is one of the first two then does this mean that new deluded "beings" are appearing (how, ex nihilo?) and if the population of Samsara is decreasing then it means that Samsara had a beginning. If so, did samsara appear ex nihilo some gadzillion aeons ago? This all isn't a critique. It is just challenging questions about certain subleties. Maybe some Mahayanists have thought in similiar fashion regarding Nibbana in a sense being inseperable from Samsara. With Best wishes, #92829 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/21/2008 5:02:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: What about Time Travel then? If time doesn't really exist, then how would time travel be explained? With Best Wishes, ...................................................... My conclusion, for what its worth, is that it is not possible. TG #92830 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence truth_aerator Hi TG, Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > In a message dated 11/21/2008 5:02:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > What about Time Travel then? If time doesn't really exist, then >how > would time travel be explained? > > With Best Wishes, > ...................................................... > > My conclusion, for what its worth, is that it is not possible. > > > TG Time travel to the future is proven possible. Time travel to the past is very iffy and we don't have the tech for that. But if it is theoretically possible , then it would require the past to exist in some shape or form (perhaps somewhere in the long distance of time dimension) With best wishes, #92831 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/21/2008 6:15:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Time travel to the future is proven possible. Time travel to the past is very iffy and we don't have the tech for that. But if it is theoretically possible , then it would require the past to exist in some shape or form (perhaps somewhere in the long distance of time dimension) With best wishes, ..................................................... TG: What do you mean by traveling to the future as being proven? You mean like Planet of the Apes stuff? In that case, they didn't travel to the future, they just aged very slowly being that they were traveling near light speed. Perhaps you mean something else. TG #92832 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Alex On second thought, in Planet of the Apes...maybe they were in suspended animation. Not that familiar with it. But nevertheless, I'd like to hear the proof for time travel to the future. TG #92833 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence truth_aerator Hi TG, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > On second thought, in Planet of the Apes...maybe they were in >suspended animation. Not that familiar with it. But nevertheless, >I'd like to hear the proof for time travel to the future. You know, when one is in a fast moving rocket the time changes at different rates for the astronaut vs someone on the Earth. That is what I've meant for the time travel to the future. one-way travel into the future is arguably possible given the phenomenon of time dilation based on velocity in the theory of special relativity (exemplified by the twin paradox) as well as gravitational time dilation in the theory of general relativity, it is currently unknown whether the laws of physics would allow backwards time travel. Any technological device, whether fictional or hypothetical, that is used to achieve time travel is known as a time machine. Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.[10] General relativity However, the theory of general relativity does suggest scientific grounds for thinking backwards time travel could be possible in certain unusual scenarios, although arguments from semiclassical gravity suggest that when quantum effects are incorporated into general relativity, these loopholes may be closed.[13] These semiclassical arguments led Hawking to formulate the chronology protection conjecture, suggesting that the fundamental laws of nature prevent time travel,[14] but physicists cannot come to a definite judgment on the issue without a theory of quantum gravity to join quantum mechanics and general relativity into a completely unified theory.[15] Time travel to the past is theoretically allowed using the following methods:[16] Space traveling faster than the speed of light The use of cosmic strings and black holes Wormholes and Alcubierre 'warp' drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel ======= With Best wishes, #92834 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Alex Most of this stuff is beyond me. But my understanding of the near light speed travel is that you don't travel into the future per se, you just age slower relative to people on Earth...so when you would return to earth, it might be 300 Earth years ( worth of conditional alteration) later, etc. It just happens to be the present and always was. Your aging slower was your problem, not a time displacement problem. LOL I have a headache now, think I'll go exercise so I might get deeper into the future. ;-) TG #92835 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:24 pm Subject: A Sutta question reverendagga... Hi everybody! I've got another sutta question I hope someone can help me with. The Sutta where Venerable Gotama gives his last sermon before his final nibbana to his diciples would be ...where? Thanks ! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #92836 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi Howard, very good, thank you. Nina. Op 21-nov-2008, om 20:40 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But one thing for sure: > There can be practice now! #92837 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sutta question nilovg Venerable Aggacitto, Mahaa-Parinibbaanasutta, Diigha Nikaaya, no 16. Respectfully, Nina. Op 22-nov-2008, om 8:24 heeft reverendaggacitto het volgende geschreven: > The Sutta where Venerable Gotama gives his last sermon before his > final > nibbana to his diciples would be ...where? #92838 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] age of the Buddhist canonical books nilovg Hi Alex, Buddhaghosa was in Sri Lanka, the Mahaavihaara, and the quote is about the Co. Tradition has it that the Buddha visited three times Sri Lanka. Mahaava.msa. Nina. Op 22-nov-2008, om 0:57 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Buddha didn't teach in Sri Lanka! His chief disciples did not teach > in Sri Lanka! He was teaching in NorthWest & North Eastern India. > > Buddhism came to Sri Lanka much later and thus doesn't have to be > from Buddha's time. #92839 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Sujin reminded us time and again that the development of satipatthåna should be very natural. The sotåpanna sees things as they are, but this does not mean that he cannot live his daily life. He does not avoid the world of conventional truth, but he has no wrong view, he does not take the unreal for reality. The sotåpanna sees visible object and after the seeing there can be thinking of the concept “person”, but he has no misunderstanding about the seeing and the thinking of concepts. He knows that there is no person there, only nåmas and rúpas which are impermanent and non-self, but this does not mean that there cannot be thinking of a person; thinking is conditioned. When thinking arises, he knows that it is a reality that thinks, no self who thinks. The objects the sotåpanna experiences and the objects the non-ariyan experiences are the same, but the sotåpanna has eradicated wrong view about them. The objects are the same, but right understanding which experiences them can grow. We have often heard that the development of satipatthåna should be very natural, but have we really grasped this? Is there right understanding in our daily life, for example, while we are eating? We may know when we have eaten enough. Can there be mindfulness at that moment? It is daily life, but perhaps we have never considered such a moment. The monks have to remember that the food they take is like a medicine for the body, that it is not for enjoyment. Food sustains the body so that one can go on with the development of right understanding. These considerations are also usefiul for lay- followers. We enjoy our meals, but do we know when the citta is kusala citta and when akusala citta while we are eating? While we consider what clothes to wear for such or such occasion, for example, when we are going to the temple, there can be mindfulness of those moments. When it is cold, don’t we reflect about what to wear? These things belong so much to our daily routine that we forget to be mindful. However, right understanding can be developed, no matter what we are doing, no matter of what we are thinking. ******** Nina #92840 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear friends, You should understand that the nåma which sees is a reality which experiences something, that it has no shape or form and that it is non-self. It is not necessary to assume a particular posture in order to know realities. It is not necessary to stand first and then see, or to sit or lie down first and then see, so that you would know seeing as it is. Satipatthåna investigates precisely the characteristic of seeing as a type of reality which experiences something, not “I” or self, not a being or a person. When satipatthåna arises and it is aware of the characteristic of rúpa appearing through the eyes, that characteristic can be investigated, so that it is known as only a type of reality, not self, not a being or a person. A person who is not forgetful of realities can be aware of them as they naturally appear, he is directly aware of their characteristics. He does not try to make sati focus on an object so that it could consider that object more deeply, over and over again. Sati arises and falls away, and then there may be again forgetfulness, or sati may be aware again of another object. Thus, we can see that satipatthåna is anattå. People who understand that all realities, including satipatthåna, are anattå, will not be confused. If someone clings to the concept of self, he is inclined to regulate and direct sati, but he does not know the right way. If one’s practice is not natural, it is complicated and creates confusion. If awareness is natural, if it studies and considers the realities which appear, there will be understanding, no confusion. ******* Nina. #92841 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > James: So you admit that we are people, you and me? > > Well obviously I do think of us as people. But at the same time I > understand the teachings to say that ideas of people and things are > conventional perceptions imputed to dhammas. James: This is what gets to the heart of the matter. I think of us as people and you think of us as people, so this whole discussion is rather silly. You see, I am asking you to explain how you think of people as not people, as just namas and rupas...what is in your mind in this regard....and what is in your mind is the same thing in my mind!! You can't convince me to not think of people as people just because that is written in the Vism. We have already established through this discussion that the Buddha didn't teach to view people in this way. The Buddha didn't say that people and conventional objects don't really exist. And, the Buddha taught that the dhamma is open to verification by anyone. But, you can't verify what you read in the Vism., if it doesn't correspond to what you experience. It is just blind faith. Metta, James #92842 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Re: Series Survey Quote. jonoabb Hi James > James: This is what gets to the heart of the matter. I think of us > as people and you think of us as people, so this whole discussion is > rather silly. You see, I am asking you to explain how you think of > people as not people, as just namas and rupas...what is in your mind > in this regard....and what is in your mind is the same thing in my > mind!! Yes, of course. We are all the same on this. The world we perceive is a world of people and things. > You can't convince me to not think of people as people just because > that is written in the Vism. I have never suggested we should not think of people as people. That kind of thinking, as we agreed before, would only be trying to see things the way we thought they should be seen (and that would be a kind of wrong view/practice). What the Buddha discovered and explained is the world of dhammas, and the way that this could be experienced. Through the (very gradual) development of understanding about the world of dhammas, the perception of a world of people and things is seen for what it is: a kind of perception only. > We have already established through > this discussion that the Buddha didn't teach to view people in this > way. The Buddha didn't say that people and conventional objects > don't really exist. And, the Buddha taught that the Dhamma is open > to verification by anyone. We are agreed on all this (the Indian summer continues ..) > But, you can't verify what you read in > the Vism., if it doesn't correspond to what you experience. It is > just blind faith. Only so much of the teachings can be verified, depending on one's current level of understanding. There is much that remains unverifiable for now. But still, we can strive to understand at an intellectual level those parts that are unverifiable for now. However, it is not suggested that in the meantime things should be taken on blind faith. Yet more agreement here, I think ;-)) Jon #92843 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:43 am Subject: Question for Nina & Other Abhidhamma Scholars upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & all - As I contemplate my experience, it seems clear to me that what normally stands out, i.e., what is typically consciously registered or noticed, is less like a single note, and more like a chord - an amalgam or blend consisting of a main note (the "current object" of consciousness) and multi-thousands of recalled notes. It SEEMS as if the main note of a "chord" and all the recalled notes of the "chord" are simultaneously occurring, blending into a "robust" amalgam. But given the claim that there is but one object of consciousness at a time, I would presume that all such "chords," of which many, many must occur in the mind stream, with each probably "highlighted," are not co-occurrences of multitudes of known objects, but, instead, are single mind states the object of which, in each case, is a single mental construct obtained by amalgamating or "summing up" a multitude of experiences, "filling out" the current object to something that combines the present with a multi-faceted recollection of the past. My question: Does Abhidhamma psychology (or, perhaps better said, commentarial psychology) countenance such amalgamation states that are the basis for our "ordinary experience"? With metta, Howard #92844 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question for Nina & Other Abhidhamma Scholars nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2008, om 14:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I > would presume that all such "chords," of which many, many must > occur in the > mind stream, with each probably "highlighted," are not co- > occurrences of > multitudes of known objects, but, instead, are single mind states > the object of > which, in each case, is a single mental construct obtained by > amalgamating or > "summing up" a multitude of experiences, "filling out" the current > object to > something that combines the present with a multi-faceted > recollection of the > past. > My question: Does Abhidhamma psychology (or, perhaps better said, > commentarial psychology) countenance such amalgamation states that > are the basis > for our "ordinary experience"? ------ N: As you say, each citta can have only one object. I also used as example a chord played on the piano, that is recognized. We can analyse: it consists of such and such notes, this is a quart, quint chord, dominant septime chord etc. This is the operation of sa~n~naa that marks and remembers each object. One sound at a time is heard. When we analyse, we are thinking of different impressions of sound. This is not hearing of sound. At the moment of hearing just sound there is no analysing of it, thinking or defining it. Nina. #92845 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question for Nina & Other Abhidhamma Scholars upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:28:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2008, om 14:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I > would presume that all such "chords," of which many, many must > occur in the > mind stream, with each probably "highlighted," are not co- > occurrences of > multitudes of known objects, but, instead, are single mind states > the object of > which, in each case, is a single mental construct obtained by > amalgamating or > "summing up" a multitude of experiences, "filling out" the current > object to > something that combines the present with a multi-faceted > recollection of the > past. > My question: Does Abhidhamma psychology (or, perhaps better said, > commentarial psychology) countenance such amalgamation states that > are the basis > for our "ordinary experience"? ------ N: As you say, each citta can have only one object. I also used as example a chord played on the piano, that is recognized. We can analyse: it consists of such and such notes, this is a quart, quint chord, dominant septime chord etc. This is the operation of sa~n~naa that marks and remembers each object. One sound at a time is heard. When we analyse, we are thinking of different impressions of sound. This is not hearing of sound. At the moment of hearing just sound there is no analysing of it, thinking or defining it. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for your reply, Nina. It doesn't quite answer my specific question, though. I suspect that your answer is "No, there are no such amalgamation states," though I cannot be sure that is your answer from what you wrote. ========================= With metta, Howard Nina. #92846 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which comes first? nilovg Hi James, Op 21-nov-2008, om 2:09 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > However, now I wonder about the phrase "nibbana is the object". How > can nibbana be an object as it is supposed to be the exact opposite > of objects? Would it be more appropriate to say that "the mind > experiences nibbana"? ------- N: Object means only that which is experienced by citta. When citta experiences nibbaana, nibbaana is the object. Nibbaana is unconditioned, thus, the opposite of the conditioned dhammas, but it can still be experienced. If nibbaana could not be experienced, thus, be the object, how could enlightenment be attained? ---------- > J: Also, for how many cittas does the mind > experience nibbana (or nibbana is the object)? Is it for one, two, > or several cittas- or does it vary with the person? ------- N: By lokuttara magga-citta (supramundane path-consciousness), that eradicates defilements and experiences nibbaana, which is imediately followed by two or three phalacittas, fruition-consciousness, which are supramundane vipaakacittas, cittas that are results, experiencing nibaana. Two or three types, depending on the individual. This happens at each of the four stages of enlightenment. --------- > J: Does the > practioner this happens to realize what has happened or does it go > by so fast that there is no realization? ------- N: Sure, it is realized, because supramundane pa~n~naa accompanies the lokuttara cittas. This is highly developed pa~n~naa. At such moments there is no doubt, no ignorance. ------ Nina. #92847 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:47 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi James, Op 21-nov-2008, om 2:41 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: This is as close to what I am imagining that you are thinking: when we view a person there isn't really a person, there is just one nama and one rupa (this is because you disconnect senses from cognition). > So, > one nama and one rupa, like fireflies, blinking on and off in the > physical location of where the supposed "person" is located. Is > this what you imagine? I just don't know what to make of that. -------- N: I looked again at the Sutta about the All, in Ven. Bodhi's translation, p. 1140. He makes a note, quoting the Co (p. 1400): the 12 sense bases (aayatanas) are meant here: the five sense-cognitions and the five senses, mindbase, including all cittas, and dhammaayatana. The latter includes cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbaana, but this is not mentioned here. The all has to be abandoned. How? In fulling understanding it. Only one nama or rupa can be understood at a time, thus not all of them at one moment. ------- J:If you disconnect seeing from cognizing you are rejecting "The All" that the Buddha taught, so I can't accept that. -------- N: Disconnection is not what I mean: being aware and understand one reality at a time, in order to know the true nature of dhammas. -------- This is what the Buddha meant when saying not to be lost in > the outward appearance of things and the details, and that is: lost > in a whole of impressions. James: You are completely misinterpreting what the Buddha said in this regard. He said to guard the sense doors and to not be attracted to the details of objects (men, women, cars, yahts, etc.) in order to subdue desire. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of objects. ------ N: Think of the Thera who met a woman laughing: he paid attention to the bone of her teeth, and did not know it was a woman. He had developed jhana and also insight, he was aware of one reality at a time and thus he could attain arahatship. For him there was no person there, no woman. He was not lost in the outward appearance of things and the details, and that is: lost in a whole of impressions. Nina. #92848 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question for Nina & Other Abhidhamma Scholars nilovg Hi Howard, Nina. Op 22-nov-2008, om 16:09 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I suspect that your answer is "No, there are no such > amalgamation states," though I cannot be sure that is your answer > from what you wrote. ------ N: We can just think about them, they are concepts that are objects of thinking. I sure use them in my piano study. Nina. #92849 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:52 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, The reason I very much appreciate this discussion is that it fits perfectly with the aims I have for learning the Dhamma. The view that expresses you is, when compared to the standard, orthodox, and precise views that organize this List, most often discrepant and divergent. I don't care about that because, at many turns, I am able to contrast the view with the way in which Abhidhamma and the Commentaries of the ancients clarify, contain, and structure Sutta interpretation. The time is long past where you and I can hope to approach the sort of understanding which the Ancients had of the Dhamma by our mere consideration and working out intellectually. True understanding is a function of pa~n~naa anyway, and has its real value in the moment. Thinking on your own about the suttas and relying on your own interpretation, at this time in the fading sasaana, is folly. The Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha and the Commentaries represent the views held by the last group of Dhamma authorities that I'm willing to respect. And they had access to the written wisdom of the Ancients. Considering the sutta excerpt: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection..." Iti kho bhikkhave dhammaavadhamme abhisandenti, dhammaavadhamme paripuurenti apaaraapaara.paripuurenti apaara Scott: The concept of time as a referent seems relevant. The view that expresses you marks time thus: TG: "Nothing remains present. Things are continually 'becoming-otherwise'..." Scott: The reason that this view is essentially a view of permanence is because it postulates that something is doing something 'continually;' that states (which are not states, only conditions) alter continually over time. It doesn't matter if one avers that something 'changes' continually, one is still considering there to be one thing that is changing and persisting *over time*. This in contradistinction to the Abhidhamma clarification of momentaneity. I see the phrase 'conditional alteration' being coined as you speak with Alex. This confirms what I'm saying above: the view is wound up with time in an idiosyncratic fashion which blurs the boundaries between past, present, and future. In particular, the concepts of arising and ceasing are essentially done away with by the view. TG: "The idea that the ceasing of something is the cause of the next thing is a COMPLETE violation of the Buddha's principles of Dependent Arising...This being, that is....this not being, that is not, with the ceasing of this, that ceases." Scott: Can the view accept the corollary: While this is, that cannot be, while this is not, that can be, with the arising of this, that arises? Its all through the suttas. I'd think the view couldn't accept this, since the view accepts that all is nothing which can be all the time while remaining the same in a changed state. "For one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is no need for an act of will: 'May non-remorse arise in me!' It is a natural law, monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." "Siilavato bhikkhave siilasampannassa na cetanaaya kara.naaya.m 'avippa.tisaaro me uppajjatu' ti. Dhammataa esaa bhikkhave ya.m saalavato saalasampannassa avippa.tisaaro uppajjati. TG: "The Buddha often states it as -- arising, changing while persisting, ceasing. The 'changing while persisting,' an awkward expression/translation, is not meant to say 'something continues to have presence,' but merely that some continues to be 'recognizable' as the same quality. Yet it continues to change...in accordance to affecting conditions." Scott: Here, and this is what occurs without the guiding governance of the Abhidhamma, that which is meant to refer to the 'sub-moments' of the *presence* of a dhamma during the moment of its existence - subsequent to arising and prior to falling away - is now applied to some conceptual entity which is essentially 'on' *all the time* (permanence) while altering in its so-called quality *over time*. This would suggest that while for some period of time there could exist 'seeing', at some point this would then 'alter' and become, say, 'hearing', and then, altering again, become perhaps, thinking, and so on. The implication is of a morphing, persistent state which stays 'on' while changing. The view doesn't accept arising and cessation. Please take the time to explicitly state the definition of 'conditions' the view holds. The term is used in a way which is completely divergent from the Abhidhamma analysis. Can you say how it differs and upon what basis the view makes this difference explicit? TG: "This 'view' is exactly what is says...flowing, causing to flow. Figurative is good. Figurative is necessary. As no concept can state with precision how phenomena actually transpire because phenomena are analogical ... and concepts are static." Scott: To suggest that phenomena are analogical is really the heart of the weakness inherent in the view, in my opinion. From this position, then, the view can easily deny the existence of realities with characteristics because the view reinvents the notion of conditionality, and analogizes all reality into the conceptual realm. Within this realm, then, one can have conditions replace realities, one can have conditions that are said to function as if they have a literal existence, and one can have concepts thought of analogs to things which are said not to exist in the first place. What the view fails to understand is that figurative, metaphorical, analogical, or conventional language is not to be taken literally. The view is entirely based on a literal take on the conventional expressions of the Buddha and the literalisms the view contains are simply too concrete. TG: The Sutta is NOT referring to proximity or contiguity conditions. That is a commentarial interpretation. The Sutta is referring to flowing and swelling conditions! Scott: And the above is a neo-commentarial interpretation, TG. The view has yet to answer to the criticism that it accords to these entities referred to as 'conditions' the same qualities that, within the orthodox Abhidhamma context, are accorded to the dhammas that arise and fall away and serve themselves as condition for other dhammas. The view simply makes up a new entity, gives it an old label - 'conditions' - and, in so doing, totally redefines the term 'conditions.' By replacing 'dhammas' with 'conditions', and 'characteristics' with 'qualities,' by doing away with paramattha dhammas and adding instead permanent magical entities which change while never ceasing, the view simply becomes some very aberrant sort of fiction. Please continue to discuss, TG. I like the process. I enjoy the chance to consider the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and the Commentarial position as they differ from the view that expresses you. Sincerely, Scott. #92850 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and James) - In a message dated 11/22/2008 10:47:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: James: You are completely misinterpreting what the Buddha said in this regard. He said to guard the sense doors and to not be attracted to the details of objects (men, women, cars, yahts, etc.) in order to subdue desire. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of objects. ------ N: Think of the Thera who met a woman laughing: he paid attention to the bone of her teeth, and did not know it was a woman. He had developed jhana and also insight, he was aware of one reality at a time and thus he could attain arahatship. For him there was no person there, no woman. He was not lost in the outward appearance of things and the details, and that is: lost in a whole of impressions. Nina. ============================ I believe you are mistaken, Nina. One could just as well say there were no teeth. For that Thera there very much was a woman! That is exactly why he attended only to her teeth, so that he would avoid the arising of lust. He was guarding the senses (in a very strict way) in order to maintain calm, avoiding the first of the hindrances, sensual desire. With metta, Howard #92851 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott I'm going to reply in small segments cause the post is too long for my A.D.D. In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Thinking on your own about the suttas and relying on your own interpretation, at this time in the fading sasaana, is folly. The Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha and the Commentaries represent the views held by the last group of Dhamma authorities that I'm willing to respect. And they had access to the written wisdom of the Ancients. ..................................................................... TG: "Thinking on your (my) own" is an impossibility. All that we know, whatever wisdom we have, is a matter of conditions. You use conditions for your judgements that I think are unreliable. And I use conditions for my judgements that you think are unreliable. (The "you" and "your," "I" and "my" are just for convenience of expression.) The "ancients" is a vague meaningless postulate. It seems to presuppose that people were much wiser circa 2500 years ago and any developments that they produced must have been correct. I don't buy that notion for a second. They had the same tendencies toward delusion we have. But you will believe what you will of course. IMO, the only "reliable standard" is nature/experience. Teachings are guides...good or bad. TG #92852 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:32 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2008, om 19:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I believe you are mistaken, Nina. One could just as well say there > were > no teeth. For that Thera there very much was a woman! That is > exactly why he > attended only to her teeth, so that he would avoid the arising of > lust. He > was guarding the senses (in a very strict way) in order to maintain > calm, > avoiding the first of the hindrances, sensual desire. ------- N: He was not interested to know, he did not let go of his mediation subject: bones. There was no forcing at all, or trying to shift attention, it was perfectly natural for him. I read another story (I believe in the Vis.) about a Thera who was offered food and he did not look up at all, day after day, it was his nature. When someone asked whether he noticed someone he said that he did not know whether it was a man or a woman. Just simply not interested. Satipatthaana can and should be very natural. Nina. #92853 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "Nothing remains present. Things are continually 'becoming-otherwise'beco Scott: The reason that this view is essentially a view of permanence is because it postulates that something is doing something 'continually;'continually;' that states (which are not states alter continually over time. It doesn't matter if one avers that something 'changes' continually, one is still considering there to be one thing that is changing and persisting *over time*. This in contradistinction to the Abhidhamma clarification of momentaneity. ........................................................... TG: Well, sue the Buddha. Why don't you look up the term "becoming-otherwise" which appears often in the Suttas. Any "permanence view" that grows out of the "words" I stated above is merely your own inclination to see it as such. There is no "self same thing" that does anything PERIOD. There never is any "self same thing," not for a fraction of a second, or at all. It is only YOU that is considering it a "remaining thing" that is changing. That's your problem and doesn't apply to my outlook. TG OUT #92854 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "The idea that the ceasing of something is the cause of the next thing is a COMPLETE violation of the Buddha's principles of Dependent Arising...This being, that is....this not being, that is not, with the ceasing of this, that ceases." Scott: Can the view accept the corollary: While this is, that cannot be, while this is not, that can be, with the arising of this, that arises? Its all through the suttas. I'd think the view couldn't accept this, since the view accepts that all is nothing which can be all the time while remaining the same in a changed state. .............................................................. TG: Regarding your "corollary statement," its not what the Buddha taught. If your trying to invent a case whereby you can claim that the end of a condition is the cause for the arising of a new condition, then you are missing the point of DO principles. And in fact, I think you are missing the point. And, such alteration of the Buddha's teaching would be necessary to support the commentarial outlook of how "dhammas" arise. TG OUT #92855 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the reply: TG: "'Thinking on your (my) own' is an impossibility. All that we know, whatever wisdom we have, is a matter of conditions. You use conditions for your judgements that I think are unreliable. And I use conditions for my judgements that you think are unreliable..." Scott: I'm looking forward to your later definition of 'conditions'. TG: "...(The 'you' and 'your,' 'I' and 'my' are just for convenience of expression.)" Scott: Agreed. TG: "...IMO, the only 'reliable standard' is nature/experience. Teachings are guides...good or bad." Scott: 'Experience' is no 'reliable standard' since one can have 'experience' based on ignorance as well as 'experience' based on wisdom, depending, of course, on conditions. This would make pa~n~naa the important element - not something called 'experience.' You've yet to make a case for 'experience' since the view does not seem to include differentiatable objects of experience, nor does it account for different modes of 'experience.' Sincerely, Scott. #92856 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:23 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/22/2008 2:32:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2008, om 19:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I believe you are mistaken, Nina. One could just as well say there > were > no teeth. For that Thera there very much was a woman! That is > exactly why he > attended only to her teeth, so that he would avoid the arising of > lust. He > was guarding the senses (in a very strict way) in order to maintain > calm, > avoiding the first of the hindrances, sensual desire. ------- N: He was not interested to know, he did not let go of his mediation subject: bones. There was no forcing at all, or trying to shift attention, it was perfectly natural for him. I read another story (I believe in the Vis.) about a Thera who was offered food and he did not look up at all, day after day, it was his nature. When someone asked whether he noticed someone he said that he did not know whether it was a man or a woman. Just simply not interested. Satipatthaana can and should be very natural. ----------------------------------------- Howard: From your discussion of it, it sounds to me like going about things with blinders on, not noticing what is there at all. If a monk doesn't look in his bowl, who knows what he might be eating! Does it make no difference whether it is oats or shards of glass? ------------------------------------------ Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #92857 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence truth_aerator Hi TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Most of this stuff is beyond me. But my understanding of the near >light speed travel is that you don't travel into the future per se, >you just age slower relative to people on Earth... If we take identical twins, and one of them travels in spacecraft at near light speed then the present for twin A will be DIFFERENT then present for Twin B. Even though both of them feel normal change of time, one twin will come back to the Earth to find that the flow of time was MUCH different. In fact this is the identical twin "paradox". >so when you would return to earth, it might > be 300 Earth years ( worth of conditional alteration) later, etc. >It just happens to be the present and always was. Your aging >slower was your problem, not a time displacement problem. LOL > Time travel is NOT life-extension. The elapsed time on spacecraft vs on Earth is felt subjectively to be identical. But when these subjectivities are compared, drastic difference is seen. So which Present is the real one, for twin A in a Spaceship or for the twin B on Earth? Their "Now" isn't syncronized. With best wishes, #92858 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] age of the Buddhist canonical books truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Buddhaghosa was in Sri Lanka, the Mahaavihaara, and the quote is > about the Co. > Tradition has it that the Buddha visited three times Sri Lanka. > Mahaava.msa. > Nina. Is there any sutta quote or even Vinaya quote which says that Buddha has visited Sri Lanka. And if he did, why? Maybe He also visited North America? The Tradition has it that Buddha taught Abhidharma to Sariputta and Maugdalyana - The Sarvastivada Abhidharma that is. The great Monk Asanga claims that he recieved his Abhidharma from the Tusita Heaven where Future Buddha Metteya resides. Which tradition am I to believe? I really hope (and keep my fingers crossed) that you understand what I am trying to say. This IS a fair question. With best wishes, #92859 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sutta question truth_aerator Dear Bhante, >reverendaggacitto het volgende geschreven: > > > The Sutta where Venerable Gotama gives his last sermon before his > > final > > nibbana to his diciples would be ...where? Parinibbana Sutta SN6.15 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.015.than.html Another sutta. With Best Wishes, #92860 From: "connie" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:12 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn Hi Howard ------- N: He was not interested to know, he did not let go of his mediation subject: bones. There was no forcing at all, or trying to shift attention, it was perfectly natural for him. I read another story (I believe in the Vis.) about a Thera who was offered food and he did not look up at all, day after day, it was his nature. When someone asked whether he noticed someone he said that he did not know whether it was a man or a woman. Just simply not interested. Satipatthaana can and should be very natural. ----------------------------------------- Howard: From your discussion of it, it sounds to me like going about things with blinders on, not noticing what is there at all. If a monk doesn't look in his bowl, who knows what he might be eating! Does it make no difference whether it is oats or shards of glass? ------------------------------------------ connie: nor whether they fell from a leperous hand. could be we are the blinded ones, having no proper grasp of our meditation subject. anyway, unless I miss my guess as to the story Nina mentioned, I think it was not noticing whether it were the king or the queen who spoke to him. there are other, similar stories but also the yoke length rule for eyes. peace, c. #92861 From: "connie" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn Ah! Hi again Howard..... turns out they are the same story. peace, connie Path of Purity, ch 2: It is said that there was a beautiful painting of the Renunciation of Seven Buddhas in the great Kura.n.daka cave. And many of the brethren, wandering round the dwellings, saw the painting, and said: "Sir, beautiful is the painting." The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. Now I know today through you who possess eyes." Thus it is said that for so long the Elder living there never lifted his eyes and looked up. And at the cave-entrance there was a great ironwood tree. But the Elder had never looked up at it. It is said that he knew it was in blossom when each spring he saw the filaments that fell to the ground. The king, hearing of the Elder's virtuous attainments, and wishing to pay his respects, sent for him three times. And when the Elder did not come he caused to be shut up the breasts of the women in the village who were suckling infants, and had his seal put to this order: "As long as the Elder does not come, so long these infants must not suck milk." [39] And the Elder, out of compassion for the infants, went to the village. And the king heard of it, and saying to his ministers, "Go, I say, and introduce the Elder; I will acquire the virtues," had the Elder brought within the palace, paid his respects, gave him his meal of food, and saying to him, "Sir, today there is no opportunity. Tomorrow I will acquire the virtues," he took the Elder's bowl, accompanied him a little distance, and having, together with the queen, paid his respects, turned back. And the Elder said: "May the king be happy!" whether it was the king that paid respects or the queen. Thus seven days passed. And the brethren said: "Sir, whether it was the king that paid respects or the queen, why did you only say: 'May the king be happy'?" The Elder replied: "Lads, I make no difference as to the king or the queen." After seven days the king, finding that the Elder was not happy there, let him go. The Elder went back to the great Kura.n.daka cave, and at night ascended to the promenade. And the diety that lived in the ironwood tree stood holding a torch. Then the Elder's subject of meditation became exceedingly pure and clear. And the Elder was glad, saying to himself, "Why is my subject of meditation so exceedingly clear today?" And causing the whole mountain to resound, he attained Sanctity immediately after the middle watch. And even so should any other son of good family desirous also of his own benefit, - Let not the eye wander like forest-ape, Or trembling wood-deer, or affrighted child. The eyes should be cast downward: they should look The distance of a yoke: he shall not serve The eye's dominion, like a restless ape." #92862 From: "connie" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:12 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn One more, Howard, c: "... turns out they are the same story." I meant the half Nina mentioned and the half I was thinking of about The Monk Who Didn't Look Up. Well, just thought I should de-vague-ify that since we seem to have trouble enough understanding each other's posts. peace, connie #92863 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:22 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Thanks, Connie. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/22/2008 8:13:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: One more, Howard, c: "... turns out they are the same story." I meant the half Nina mentioned and the half I was thinking of about The Monk Who Didn't Look Up. Well, just thought I should de-vague-ify that since we seem to have trouble enough understanding each other's posts. peace, connie #92864 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:16 pm Subject: Intention causes the karmic effects! bhikkhu0 Friends: Phenomena are either Causes, or Effects or Neither: The blessed Buddha said: 1: There are States, which are Causes... 2: There are States, which are Effects... 3: There are States, which are neither Causes, nor Effects... Unintentional (=kiriya ) action (=kamma ), being neither advantageous (=kusala ) nor detrimental (=akusala ), falls in the third category 3, as neither effected themselves, nor causing any effects (=vipāka )... Other phenomena in this third category are all inanimate Forms such as stones, plants, mountains, instruments, oceans, trees, etc, and the unconditional & unconstructed element of Nibbāna... They are all inactive, passive and neutral as they are neither a cause nor an effect and they are neither advantageous nor detrimental! Some Examples: Unintentionally killing an ant by stepping on it carries no bad effects. Why not? It was not caused by any evil intention by anybody! A knife or even an atomic bomb is not evil or bad in itself since they are merely unconscious inanimate forms lacking intention. The evil use of these instruments however entails pain caused by the bad intention motivating this evil action. Kamma is the intention! Mind (Mano) is an ever renewed cycle sequences of this chain of 5 events: Sense Contact1 => Feeling1 => Perception1 => Intention1 => Attention1 Sense Contact2 => Feeling2 => Perception2 => Intention2 => Attention2 Sense Contact3 => Feeling3 => Perception3 => Intention3 => Attention3 Etc. Frequency ~ millions per second. Just an automaton, a mental robot... An impersonal 'roll out' of conditions. Neither 'I', nor 'me, nor 'mine'... <...> Source: The 1st AbhiDhamma Book: DhammasanghanÄ«: The Classification of States. The Enumeration of Ultimate Realities. Tr. by U Kyaw Khine. 1999. Sri Satguru Publications. Delhi. Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #92865 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Here, and this is what occurs without the guiding governance of the Abhidhamma, that which is meant to refer to the 'sub-moments' of the *presence* of a dhamma during the moment of its existence - ................................................... TG: Continuing... These so-called "sub-moments" are another example of Abhidhammists getting carried away with mere language and failing to understand the meaning that the words are meant to indicate. I'm sure you won't find the Buddha talking about "sub-moments" in the Suttas. TG OUT #92866 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: This would suggest that while for some period of time there could exist 'seeing', at some point this would then 'alter' and become, say, 'hearing', and then, altering again, become perhaps, thinking, and so on. The implication is of a morphing, persistent state which stays 'on' while changing. The view doesn't accept arising and cessation. .............................................. TG: You got part of it right. Morphing is a good description. However, obviously, a visual experience does not "morph" into a audible experience through THAT sense base or area of consciousness. But consciousness does alter its attention from experience to experience based on the most dominant experience given at any current time. Basically ... If the eyes open, visual consciousness arises, if the eyes close, no visual consciousness. What's the bid deal about arising and ceasing? Of course its contained in the view. Reality is about what really happens, not about debating techniques. TG #92867 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Please take the time to explicitly state the definition of 'conditions' the view holds. ................................. TG: Whatever is caused and whatever is a cause is a condition/conditions. No need to be more explicit as that fully states it. TG OUT #92868 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott None of the below argument holds any water and it is basically a narcissistic dream view that all the Abhidhammic alterations to the Suttas are what the Buddha meant...even though in all of those thousands of pages of Suttas...he didn't say it. In fact, I find the Abhidhamma commentaries to be the ones that have stumbled by being over-literal in how they decipher the terms. "Sub-moments" is a great example. What a ridiculous notion! Abhidhamma commentarial view is stuck with a notion of "dhammas" as "their own things" so they can't bear a teaching that indicates that there isn't anything that is its own thing. So, silly things like "sub-moments" are invented. Ultimate realities, own characteristics....all the crucial elements of Abhidhammic commentarial views...oh, and by the way...they don't happen to appear in the Suttas. I guess you folks just "divine" that this is what the Buddha meant. LOL “However one might ponder It -- (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) And carefully investigate it, It appears but hollow and void When one views it carefully. Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.” (The Buddha . . . circa 600 BC. . . . Connected DB, vol. 1, pg. 953) TG OUT #92869 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:02 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2008, om 21:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > From your discussion of it, it sounds to me like going about things > with > blinders on, not noticing what is there at all. If a monk doesn't > look in > his bowl, who knows what he might be eating! Does it make no > difference whether > it is oats or shards of glass? ------- N: You misunderstand the monk's life. When they are walking for alms, like in Thailand, they are not supposed to look at the giver, man or woman. Nina. #92870 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:07 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear Connie (and Howard) Op 23-nov-2008, om 1:44 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty > years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. ------ Yes, that was the story. It impressed me so much when I read it long ago. For the Thera: just colour appeared, and no interest in the details. He was aware of nama and rupa. Nina. #92871 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] age of the Buddhist canonical books nilovg Hi Alex, Op 22-nov-2008, om 22:36 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Which tradition am I to believe? I really hope (and keep my fingers > crossed) that you understand what I am trying to say. This IS a fair > question. ------- N: Not believe blindly. Read the Mahavamsa and see what you think. It is a matter of further investigation. Nina. #92872 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:18 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. szmicio Dear Nina > Dear Connie (and Howard) > Op 23-nov-2008, om 1:44 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > > > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty > > years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. > ------ > Yes, that was the story. It impressed me so much when I read it long > ago. > For the Thera: just colour appeared, and no interest in the details. > He was aware of nama and rupa. we usually think about details, we are so involved in daily life. understanding is sankhata dhamma, it appears when there are proper conditions. But maybe we sholud help it somehow? Maybe we should became o monk first to develop understanding? right understandnig develops so slow, so slow. And defilments are so strong. When we read more, listening and consider Dhamma, are we on a good way? Best wishes Lukas P.s Now I am reading your cetasikas- akusala dhammas. It is very helpful so far. I think about conditions for siila and kusala dhamma. Is it true if we are in some special places (monasteries) there is less akusala and more conditions for kusala. Now I am starting to see that all this thinking just thinking, and trying to not consider a dhamma in such way. #92873 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/23/2008 12:32:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Scott In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: This would suggest that while for some period of time there could exist 'seeing', at some point this would then 'alter' and become, say, 'hearing', and then, altering again, become perhaps, thinking, and so on. The implication is of a morphing, persistent state which stays 'on' while changing. The view doesn't accept arising and cessation. .............................................. TG: You got part of it right. Morphing is a good description. However, obviously, a visual experience does not "morph" into a audible experience through THAT sense base or area of consciousness. But consciousness does alter its attention from experience to experience based on the most dominant experience given at any current time. Basically ... If the eyes open, visual consciousness arises, if the eyes close, no visual consciousness. -------------------------------------------- Howard: A very small bone to pick here, TG, not on you main point: That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close your eyes, you will observe that you can still see. There is still an expanse of color, and there is even variation in it; and if all light is removed, there is still seen an expanse of black - plus occasional visual interruptions that neurologists account for by their explanatory-predictive stories, a.k.a., scientific theories. In a not-fully-unconscious mind stream, the only times there is no visual consciousness are when consciousness is operative via another door. ------------------------------------------- What's the bid deal about arising and ceasing? Of course its contained in the view. Reality is about what really happens, not about debating techniques. TG ========================= With metta, Howard #92874 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Connie) - In a message dated 11/23/2008 3:07:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Connie (and Howard) Op 23-nov-2008, om 1:44 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty > years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. ------ Yes, that was the story. It impressed me so much when I read it long ago. For the Thera: just colour appeared, and no interest in the details. He was aware of nama and rupa. Nina. ============================== It impresses me, too, Nina, but not in the way it impresses you. Fortunately for others, the Buddha was able to "see" more. The Buddha knew what was going on in all ways. His wisdom didn't consist of censorship and a blanking out. The human ideal is a Buddha, not an amoeba or embryo or any other life form that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. With metta, Howard #92875 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:14 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...Why don't you look up the term 'becoming-otherwise' which appears often in the Suttas..." Scott: AN III, 47 Asa"nkhatalakkha.nasutta.m "There are, O monks, three conditioned marks of the conditioned (asa"khatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naani). What three? Its origination is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), its vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), its change while persisting is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati)..." "Tii.nimaani, bhikkhave, asa"khatassa asa"nkhatalakkha.naani. Katamaani tii.ni? Na uppaado pa~n~naayati, na vayo pa~n~naayati, na .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho, bhikkhave, tii.ni asa"khatassa asa.nkhatalakkha.naanii''ti." SN 22 37 (5) Aanandasutta.m "...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m). With feeling...perception...volitional formations...consciousness an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned..." "...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa kho, aananda, uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya... sa"khaaraana.... vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho, aananda, dhammaana.m uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayatiiti." Scott: We know that the above is the basis of the Abhidhamma clarification in which these 'sub-moments' are shown to be in reference to the brief arising, presence, and falling away of any given conditioned dhamma. In particular, we know that the Abhidhamma clarifies '.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m' to refer to the moment of presence between the arising (uppaado) and vanishing (vayo) of any given conditioned dhamma. Therefore, we see that this is in the Suttas. And we see how this corresponds to the Abhidhamma. As far as the view which expresses you is concerned - that the above is meant some other way - upon what does this view find itself based? What evidence can be shown to back up the assertions that the above does not refer to 'sub-moments?' Other than to merely assert that 'change while persisting' or 'alteration of that which stands' means other than what is clarified in the Abhidhamma, or to simply say that because of a given way of thinking about English words the view is somehow justified, can you show the textual basis of the view that holds you? Sincerely, Scott. #92876 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Whatever is caused and whatever is a cause is a condition/conditions. No need to be more explicit as that fully states it." Scott: Can you comment on Visudhimagga XVII, 67 (referring specifically to 'Root-cause condition,' but generally to conditions): "...Herein, 'cause' (hetu) is a term for a part of a syllogism, for a reason, and for a root. For with the words 'proposition' (pa.ti~n~naa), 'cause' (hetu=middle term), etc., in the world it is a member of a syllogism that is called a cause. But in the Dispensation, in such passages as 'Those states that are produced from a cause' (Vin.i,40), it is a reason (kaara.na); and in such passages as 'Three profitable [root-] causes, three unprofitable [root-] causes' (Dhs. 1053), it is a root (muula) that is called a cause. The last is intended here. "As to 'condition' (paccaya), the word-meaning here is this: It [the fruit] comes from that, depending thereon (pa.ticca etasmaa eti), thus that is a condition (paccaya);...the meaning is, [a state] occurs by another state's presence or arising, the former is a condition for the latter. But as to characteristic, a condition has the characteristic of assisting; for any given state that assists the presence or arising of a given state is called the latter's condition. The words condition, cause, reason, source, originator, producer, etc, are one in meaning though different in letter..." Scott: In the above, an important difference is set out which bears consideration. A 'worldly' definition of 'cause' differs from the definition that applies to the 'Dispensation.' The worldly definition is based solely on a syllogism - a process of deductive reasoning out of which a conclusion is drawn from two premises. How does the view which expresses you differ from mere worldly syllogistic reasoning? The view does away with states that have characteristics and therefore it does not correspond to the way in which condition is meant within the Dispensation. In the above, one state is condition in that it assists in some way the presence or arising of another state. The view seems to postulate conditions without states - an impossibility. Might you be able to compare and contrast the definition of condition offered above with the Visuddhimagga quote? Might you also be able to provide support for the definition that is other than some version of 'because I say so?' Sincerely, Scott. #92877 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" truth_aerator Hello TG, Scott and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Scott > > > In a message dated 11/22/2008 9:53:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > scduncan@... writes: > > Scott: Here, and this is what occurs without the guiding >governance of the Abhidhamma, that which is meant to refer to >the 'sub-moments' of the *presence* of a dhamma during the moment >of its existence - > > ................................................... > >TG: Continuing... These so-called "sub-moments" are another >example of Abhidhammists getting carried away with mere language >and failing to understand the meaning that the words are meant to >indicate. I'm sure you won't find the Buddha talking about "sub- >moments" in the Suttas. > > > TG OUT If these sub-moments are unpercievable, then we are getting into the Metaphysics and might as well consider an "impercievable Self" lurking beyond the knowable phenomena. Similiar stuff. With best wishes, #92878 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "If these sub-moments are unperceivable, then we are getting into the Metaphysics and might as well consider an 'imperceivable Self' lurking beyond the knowable phenomena. Similiar stuff." Scott: If you'd consider the suttas offered, you'd see that we are dealing with that which can be known. In the AN sutta: "Its origination is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), its vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), its change while persisting is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati)..." Scott: And from the SN sutta: "...an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)." Scott: The discerning of these three is a function of pa~n~naa, as the suttas clearly show. Not metaphysics. Sincerely, Scott. #92879 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "You got part of it right. Morphing is a good description. However, obviously, a visual experience does not 'morph' into a audible experience through THAT sense base or area of consciousness. But consciousness does alter its attention from experience to experience based on the most dominant experience given at any current time." Scott: In the above, five sense bases are acknowledged, yet 'consciousness' is said to 'alter its attention,' and a notion of 'dominant experience' is offered. This is mere, mundane, worldly armchair psychology of perception and attention. Where in the texts does it show this, except in Psychology 101? ;-) TG: "Basically ... If the eyes open, visual consciousness arises, if the eyes close, no visual consciousness. What's the bid deal about arising and ceasing?..." Scott: Please consider the Sutta excerpts I offer and then tell me what the 'big deal about arising and ceasing' is, I you would. Sincerely, Scott. #92880 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, "...I you would." That should have been, 'if you would.' Otherwise it makes as little sense as the rest of what I say. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #92881 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:35 am Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Scott: The discerning of these three is a function of pa~n~naa, as the > suttas clearly show. Not metaphysics. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Yes but the suttas aren't dealing with 100 trillions of cittas per second sort of radical change that Abh Comy proposes which is probably even impossible to percieve. With only the best wishes, Alex #92882 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:01 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 1. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 (part 1) Intro: In the last section of the chapter on the Dependent Origination the Visuddhimagga shows once more the danger of being in the cycle, the suffering it brings about and the urgency to develop the understanding that leads out of the cycle. ------------ Text Vis. 314.: There is no one, even in a dream, who has got out of the fearful round of rebirths, which is ever destroying like a thunderbolt, unless he has severed with the knife of knowledge well whetted on the stone of sublime concentration, this Wheel of Becoming, which offers no footing owing to its great profundity and is hard to get by owing to the maze of many methods. ------- N: The Tiika remarks as to ‘which is ever destroying’, that the Wheel of Becoming brings about extreme suffering (ekantadukkha). --------- Text Vis.: And this has been said by the Blessed One: 'This dependent origination is profound, Aananda, and profound it appears. And, Aananda, it is through not knowing, through not penetrating it, that this generation has become a tangled skein,...’ --------- N: The Tiika refers here to the Great Discourse on Causation (Mahaanidaanasutta, Diigha Nikaaya 15), and its Co gives further explanations of the words quoted in the Visuddhimagga (using the translation by Ven. Bodhi of the Co and subco): < through not knowing, through not penetrating it: ananubodha: because of not understanding it by way of full understanding of the known. appa.tivedha: not penetrating: because of not penetrating it by way of the full understanding of scrutinization and the full understanding of abandoning.> Subco: < The delimitation of mentality-materiality and the discernment of conditions do not come about by the mere first interpretation of phenomena, but by the recurrent arising of knowledge about them called “ repeated understanding”. > N: These texts refers to the three pari~n~nas, full understanding, which occur in the course of the development of insight. 'Full understanding of the known', ~naata pari~n~na, begins at the first stage of insight which clearly discerns the difference between the characteristics of naama and ruupa. As the subco states, repeated understanding is a necessary condition for the arising of this stage. Strong similes are used to show how much entangled we are in the cycle, such as the simile of the tangled skein of the weaver’s yarn, but since they are difficult to understand today they need some explanations. Tangled skein (tantaakulajaata): Co to the mahaanidaanasutta: < When weaver’s yarn which has been badly kept and gnawed by mice becomes entangled all over, it is difficult to distinguish its beginning and end and to straighten it out from beginning to end. Similarly, beings have stumbled over the principle of conditionality...> Subco: < “Stumbled over the principle of conditionality”: having missed the middle path, they have fallen into the two extremes (of eternalism and annihilationism). “Stumbled over conditions”: stumbled by assuming the conditioning phenomena to be permanent, suffering and non-self...> -------- Text Vis.: a knotted ball of thread, root-matted as a reed bed, ---------- N: The Co. to the Mahaanidaanasutta: The Tiika to the Vis. adds: very much entangled by the triple round of defilements (kilesa), of kamma and of vipaaka. Because of vipaakacitta that experiences pleasant or unpleasant objects defilements arise and these can motivate kamma which produces again vipaaka. As to the phrase: ‘rootmatted as a reed bed’, this is like matted rushes and reeds, the Co to the Mahaanidaanasutta: < These grasses are beaten and made into a rope. If one takes that rope when it has become old and has fallen somewhere, it is difficult to distinguish the beginning and end of those grasses and to straighten them out from beginning to end....> ------------ Text Vis.:and finds no way out of the round of rebirths, with its states of loss, unhappy destinies, ... perdition' (D.ii,55). ---------- N: As to states of perdition, unhappy states, the Tiika elaborates: perdition because of the absence of progress or welfare, destruction of happiness. It refers to the fourfold state of loss (apaaya): to rebirth in the lower planes of the animal world, ghost world, demon- worlds and hell. (to be continued) ******* Nina. #92883 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Yes but the suttas aren't dealing with 100 trillions of cittas per second sort of radical change that Abh Comy proposes which is probably even impossible to perceive." Scott: In the AN sutta: "Its origination is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), its vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), its change while persisting is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati)..." Scott: And from the SN sutta: "...an arising is discerned (uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati), an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)." Scott: The sutta states that arising, alteration of that which stands, and vanishing is discernible. Sincerely, Scott. #92884 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 6:44:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: A very small bone to pick here, TG, not on you main point: That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close your eyes, you will observe that you can still see. There is still an expanse of color, and there is even variation in it; and if all light is removed, there is still seen an expanse of black - plus occasional visual interruptions that neurologists account for by their explanatory-neurologists account for by scientific theories. In a not-fully-unconscioscientific theories. In a not-fully- no visual consciousness are when consciousness is operative via another door. ................................................................. TG: Yea, I know you bring this up from time to time and I even considered mentioning it knowing you may see it. LOL I consider it insignificant in terms of the general conditionality discussion so didn't want to get distracted with it. You may find it more important than I. Perhaps the rods and cones or other processes have a residue lingering effect. Of course if its still light, the eyelids won't cut out 100% of the light. Practicality is what is wanted in this group. LOL TG #92885 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:15 am Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Scott: The sutta states that arising, alteration of that which stands, > and vanishing is discernible. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Yes but not when that something is 100 trillion per second cittas. With Best Wishes, Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (116) #92886 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:24 am Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Yes but not when that something is 100 trillion per second cittas." Scott: You're playing on the Away team here, Alex. I accept the Abhidhamma and commentarial analysis of arising, presence, and falling away. I've yet to read a sutta-only fundamentalist who can offer a more cogent, comprehensive, and accurate explanation. Do you wish simply to state (again) that you disagree with the Abhidhamma or do you actually have your own alternative explanation for the suttas offered? Sincerely, Scott. #92887 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/23/2008 2:11:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 6:44:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: A very small bone to pick here, TG, not on you main point: That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close your eyes, you will observe that you can still see. There is still an expanse of color, and there is even variation in it; and if all light is removed, there is still seen an expanse of black - plus occasional visual interruptions that neurologists account for by their explanatory-neurologists account for by scientific theories. In a not-fully-unconscioscientific theories. In a not-fully- no visual consciousness are when consciousness is operative via another door. ................................................................. TG: Yea, I know you bring this up from time to time and I even considered mentioning it knowing you may see it. LOL I consider it insignificant in terms of the general conditionality discussion so didn't want to get distracted with it. You may find it more important than I. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, having been mildly "annoyed" by Khun Sujin's reported statements along the same lines, because they are contrary to the experiential reality, I felt even-handedly obliged to comment when you said the same thing! ;-)) I agree, though, that it is of minor importance, and certainly off-topic as regards your central thesis. (BTW, your AOL quoting is still malfunctioning a bit, it seems.) ----------------------------------------- Perhaps the rods and cones or other processes have a residue lingering effect. Of course if its still light, the eyelids won't cut out 100% of the light. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Even with 100% absence of light and no nerve firings, an expanse of blackness is still a sight (a.k.a., a visible object). ----------------------------------------- Practicality is what is wanted in this group. LOL ---------------------------------------- Howard: Wanted ... or wanting?? ;-)) --------------------------------------- TG ========================= With metta, Howard #92888 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:33 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Dear Lukas, always a pleasure to correspond with you. Op 23-nov-2008, om 11:18 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > we usually think about details, we are so involved in daily life. > understanding is sankhata dhamma, it appears when there are proper > conditions. But maybe we should help it somehow? Maybe we should > became o monk first to develop understanding? ------ N: That is a very personal decision. One should not become a monk because of the wrong reasons, when it is not one's true accumulation to lead such a life, the life of an arahat. Besides, it is very difficult today to find a place where there is pure Vinaya, Ven. Dhammadhara had a lot of trouble with this. A monk's life is a very hard life. ------- > L: right understandnig develops so slow, so slow. And defilments > are so > strong. When we read more, listening and consider Dhamma, are we on a > good way? ------ N: Sure. You cannot make understanding grow faster, nobody can. ------ > L: P.s > Now I am reading your cetasikas- akusala dhammas. It is very helpful > so far. > > I think about conditions for siila and kusala dhamma. Is it true if we > are in some special places (monasteries) there is less akusala and > more conditions for kusala. > Now I am starting to see that all this thinking just thinking, and > trying to not consider a dhamma in such way. ------- N: It is good you see it as just thinking. That means understanding is growing. But not as fast as you would like to, because it is anattaa. Not the place where one is, it is understanding that conditions less akusala, more kusala. Meghiya wanted to go to a secluded place and asked the Buddha three times. When he went he had many akusala cittas. Against expectations. Expectations are lobha, not helpful. Nina. #92889 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi Howard and TG, Op 23-nov-2008, om 14:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - > even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close > your eyes, > you will observe that you can still see. ------ N: Yes, we did discuss this with her. It is different from when you are completely blind. But when the eyes are open, the seeing of colour is the condition for perceiving different things, and this is not so when the eyes are closed. Thus, generally speaking, we can refer to: when your eyes are closed, no seeing. There is not the ordinary seeing like just now. Nina. #92890 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/23/2008 2:40:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and TG, Op 23-nov-2008, om 14:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - > even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close > your eyes, > you will observe that you can still see. ------ N: Yes, we did discuss this with her. It is different from when you are completely blind. But when the eyes are open, the seeing of colour is the condition for perceiving different things, and this is not so when the eyes are closed. Thus, generally speaking, we can refer to: when your eyes are closed, no seeing. There is not the ordinary seeing like just now. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sorry, Nina, that's incorrect. She is in error. ---------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #92891 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 23-nov-2008, om 14:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It impresses me, too, Nina, but not in the way it impresses you. > Fortunately for others, the Buddha was able to "see" more. The > Buddha knew what was > going on in all ways. His wisdom didn't consist of censorship and a > blanking > out. > The human ideal is a Buddha, not an amoeba or embryo or any other life > form that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. Heightened wisdom > isn't > synonymous loss of capacity. -------- N: The monk did not stare at women or decorations of the cave, he lived like an arahat. This was not unnatural to him. In the seeing there was just the seen. The Buddha looked at people, just because they were an object of metta and compassion. Very natural. When we look at other people or talk to them: there are different possibilities for kusala citta instead of lobha or dosa. There are objects appearing through the six doors, and we can slowly, slowly learn to be aware of one object at a time. This will lead to detachment from self. Or: we can regard people as objects of metta and compassion or have thoughts of generosity. My friend Kh Duangduen who always assists Kh Sujin, is a very good example for me in this. The whole day she thinks of generosity. Nina. #92892 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi Howard, Op 23-nov-2008, om 20:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Sorry, Nina, that's incorrect. She is in error. ----- N: Do investigate further what is meant. Nina. #92893 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 12:31:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, having been mildly "annoyed" by Khun Sujin's reported statements along the same lines, because they are contrary to the experiential reality, I felt even-handedly obliged to comment when you said the same thing! ;-)) ...................................................... TG: Didn't you know I was a undercover Abhidhammika in here to test the mettle of my fellow Abhidhammikas? ... On special assignment from KS headquarters. ......................................................... I agree, though, that it is of minor importance, and certainly off-topic as regards your central thesis. (BTW, your AOL quoting is still malfunctioning a bit, it seems.) ----------------------------------------- Perhaps the rods and cones or other processes have a residue lingering effect. Of course if its still light, the eyelids won't cut out 100% of the light. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Even with 100% absence of light and no nerve firings, an expanse of blackness is still a sight (a.k.a., a visible object). ............................................................ TG: Well, I don't know about that...but I have heard, once you go black, you never go back. Maybe this is what you mean? Seriously though...I would not consider an expanse of blackness to be a sight. I'd probably disagree with that. I'm guessing that would be the experience of a blind person/soul. (The 'soul' added here just to torture Abhidhammikas.) LOL .............................................................................. . ----------------------------------------- Practicality is what is wanted in this group. LOL ---------------------------------------- Howard: Wanted ... or wanting?? ;-)) ........................................................... TG: Which ever one works best for you is the intended meaning. ;-) TG OUT #92894 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Nina and Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 12:40:45 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Yes, we did discuss this with her. It is different from when you are completely blind. But when the eyes are open, the seeing of colour is the condition for perceiving different things, and this is not so when the eyes are closed. Thus, generally speaking, we can refer to: when your eyes are closed, no seeing. There is not the ordinary seeing like just now. Nina. ........................................................ TG: I could almost agree with this statement....I said almost! LOL The color comment I have to take issue with. If this was a true statement, we couldn't perceive objects on a black and white TV. Not to mention many other things...low light levels, color blindness, etc. Color is not the primary issue for seeing-object...light is. TG OUT #92895 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. truth_aerator Dear Scott, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "Yes but not when that something is 100 trillion per second >cittas." > > Scott: You're playing on the Away team here, Alex. I accept the > Abhidhamma and commentarial analysis of arising, presence, and >falling > away. I accept that things have arising, duration and ceasing. The thing is: Is it possible to percieve 100 trillion or so citta moments? > I've yet to read a sutta-only fundamentalist who can offer a more > cogent, comprehensive, and accurate explanation. Buddha Dhamma isn't supposed to be Physics. Don't you know that? Best wishes, #92896 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "I accept that things have arising, duration and ceasing. The thing is: Is it possible to percieve 100 trillion or so citta moments?" Scott: This is your old saw, Alex. What are the parameters of your explanation of arising, duration, and ceasing? What is the source of your explanation? It is of your own creation, as it likely will be, then of what use is it? How would your explanation improve on that of the Abhidhamma and the Commentaries? Sincerely, Scott. #92897 From: "connie" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:24 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn Hi again Howard! > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. ------ H: The human ideal is a Buddha, c: yeah & as far as idealically goes, i think the Buddha compared life's worth to something else with the nutrients fairly sucked out of it. i'm in the favorably impressed camp as far as the Elder's not knowing here. 60 years an embryo; no time at all. h: <...snipped...> that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. c: i like the word nimitta. no friend, i tend to think. ah, but the company we keep. and our animal talk. ooh, baby, aah, the prison brick walls. the warden smiles. h: Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. c: surely, there's no capacity for harm & it's our level of wisdom that lacks the capacity for greater detachment. no need to mention true compassion. if you haven't seen www.hulu.com/watch/27800/koyaanisqatsi i guess it won't really spoil the end to give the definitions for the title here: koyaanisqatsi (hopi) n. 1. crazy life; 2. life in turmoil; 3. life out of balance; 4. life disintegrating; 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living. anyway, it kinda makes you think about how much of it's just visible object and thinking. lol - a guided meditation. i couldn't do it in one sitting. peace, connie #92898 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/23/2008 3:05:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 12:31:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, having been mildly "annoyed" by Khun Sujin's reported statements along the same lines, because they are contrary to the experiential reality, I felt even-handedly obliged to comment when you said the same thing! ;-)) ...................................................... TG: Didn't you know I was a undercover Abhidhammika in here to test the mettle of my fellow Abhidhammikas? ... On special assignment from KS headquarters. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-) Sounds almost like a return to "Space, the Final Frontier." --------------------------------------------- ......................................................... I agree, though, that it is of minor importance, and certainly off-topic as regards your central thesis. (BTW, your AOL quoting is still malfunctioning a bit, it seems.) ----------------------------------------- Perhaps the rods and cones or other processes have a residue lingering effect. Of course if its still light, the eyelids won't cut out 100% of the light. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Even with 100% absence of light and no nerve firings, an expanse of blackness is still a sight (a.k.a., a visible object). ............................................................ TG: Well, I don't know about that...but I have heard, once you go black, you never go back. Maybe this is what you mean? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, you didn't really say that, did you? (I know, sometimes it's hard to resist the comic line despite, well, ... just despite. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Seriously though...I would not consider an expanse of blackness to be a sight. I'd probably disagree with that. I'm guessing that would be the experience of a blind person/soul. (The 'soul' added here just to torture Abhidhammikas.) LOL ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that seeing black is quite different from not seeing. When there is hearing, is one seeing an expanse blackness? I doubt it! ----------------------------------------------- .............................................................................. . ----------------------------------------- Practicality is what is wanted in this group. LOL ---------------------------------------- Howard: Wanted ... or wanting?? ;-)) ........................................................... TG: Which ever one works best for you is the intended meaning. ;-) TG OUT =========================== With metta, Howard #92899 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Ksanika VADA. truth_aerator Dear Scott, > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "I accept that things have arising, duration and ceasing. The >thing is: Is it possible to percieve 100 trillion or so citta >moments?" > > Scott: This is your old saw, Alex. > > What are the parameters of your explanation of arising, duration, >and ceasing? What is the source of your explanation? Suttas and direct experience are source of that explanation that 5 aggregates have arising and ceasing. > > It is of your own creation, as it likely will be, then of what use >is it? What? I accept that Mind (citta/cetasika) can rapidly change. Lust can arise in 1 second to be followed by Hate the next second and to be augmented by delusion in the 3rd second. What I doubt is when people claim that trillions of mind moments can occur and to describe them. Especially this claim is questionable when the beloved mind-moments are used to explain things such as doing wholesome deeds and experiencing displeasure or doing evil deeds and experiencing pleasure while doing them (ex: having fun while fishing). > How would your explanation improve on that of the Abhidhamma and the > Commentaries? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Even in Canonical Abhy there isn't a developed Ksanikavada, it is found in the commentaries to the Abh and thus it is a fair play to doubt, especially regarding concepts not central in the Sutta pitaka. Best wishes, #92900 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:44 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 11/23/2008 4:25:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi again Howard! > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. ------ ---------------------------------------- Howard: Awarded on behalf of the moderators, without first checking with them! ;-)) ---------------------------------------- H: The human ideal is a Buddha, c: yeah & as far as idealically goes, i think the Buddha compared life's worth to something else with the nutrients fairly sucked out of it. i'm in the favorably impressed camp as far as the Elder's not knowing here. 60 years an embryo; no time at all. h: <...snipped...> that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. c: i like the word nimitta. no friend, i tend to think. ah, but the company we keep. and our animal talk. ooh, baby, aah, the prison brick walls. the warden smiles. h: Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. c: surely, there's no capacity for harm & it's our level of wisdom that lacks the capacity for greater detachment. no need to mention true compassion. if you haven't seen www.hulu.com/watch/27800/koyaanisqatsi i guess it won't really spoil the end to give the definitions for the title here: koyaanisqatsi (hopi) n. 1. crazy life; 2. life in turmoil; 3. life out of balance; 4. life disintegrating; 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living. anyway, it kinda makes you think about how much of it's just visible object and thinking. lol - a guided meditation. i couldn't do it in one sitting. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The link doesn't seem to work, Connie. -------------------------------------------------- peace, connie =========================== With metta, Howard #92901 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 2:38:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Seriously though...I would not consider an expanse of blackness to be a sight. I'd probably disagree with that. I'm guessing that would be the experience of a blind person/soul. (The 'soul' added here just to torture Abhidhammikas.Abhidhamm ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that seeing black is quite different from not seeing. When there is hearing, is one seeing an expanse blackness? I doubt it! .................................................. TG: Ohhh keeeeyyyyy. So then are you also saying that when concentration on hearing, when there is no sound, is hearing 'no sound?' And that is a "hearing experience?" So I'm not eating now, but if I focus on tasting, and have no tastes...that this is the experience of tasting "no taste?" Perhaps you mean seeing something black...which doesn't actually happen IMO...cause if you can see it, its not truly black. What might be being seen are subtle reflections that reveal an object. For me, truly black would be a good definition of no sight. Well, I'll pass on that stuff as too much minutia. TG OUT #92902 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/23/2008 9:17:27 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: The view does away with states that have characteristics and therefore it does not correspond to the way in which condition is meant within the Dispensation. .................................................. TG: Now we're calling it "the dispensation" are we? Please show me in the "Sutta dispensation" where the Buddha discusses anything as having "its own" characteristic. "Sabhava" being a favorite Abhidhammic commentarial invention. In fact, in "the (Sutta) dispensation" it does not occur does it? Only in the "commentarial invention" does it occur. So lets conclude... You are claiming what "isn't the dispensation" (the commentaries) ... as being "the dispensation." Then you are making a case that my conclusions which do conform to the "Sutta dispensation," are not valid because they don't conform to your "commentarial invented dispensation." LOL I'm real worried about that. TG OUT #92903 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/23/2008 9:22:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: If these sub-moments are unpercievable, then we are getting into the Metaphysics and might as well consider an "impercievable Self" lurking beyond the knowable phenomena. Similiar stuff. With best wishes, ............................................... TG: Agreed. Its all a theory and a pretty weak one at that. TG OUT #92904 From: "connie" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn Hi Howard, Howard: The link doesn't seem to work, Connie. ---------------------------------------- c: sorry. i guess you could just go to hulu.com, movie section, and put koyaanisqatsi in the search block. Wish I could say "enjoy"! peace, connie #92905 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:26 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina (and Connie) - > > In a message dated 11/23/2008 3:07:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Dear Connie (and Howard) > Op 23-nov-2008, om 1:44 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > > > The Elder said, "Lads, I have lived in the cave for over sixty > > years and I did not even know whether the painting existed or not. > ------ > Yes, that was the story. It impressed me so much when I read it long > ago. > For the Thera: just colour appeared, and no interest in the details. > He was aware of nama and rupa. > Nina. > ============================== > It impresses me, too, Nina, but not in the way it impresses you. > Fortunately for others, the Buddha was able to "see" more. Hi Howard, I think you are saying the Buddha was able to see more than individual namas and rupas - he was able to see what you like to call 'streams' 'amalgams' or 'complex interconnected webs.' But those are what we all see (or think we see). They are easy: namas and rupas are the hard ones. --------------------------- H: > The Buddha knew what was going on in all ways. His wisdom didn't consist of censorship and a blanking out. The human ideal is a Buddha, not an amoeba or embryo or any other life form that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. ---------------------------- It's strange that you should accuse Nina, of all people, of advocating blocking out and censorship. Isn't that what the formal meditators try to do? Nina has always advocated understanding the present reality - whatever it is! ----------------------- H: > Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. ----------------------- I think you will find that insight brings dispassion, relinquishment, renunciation and extinction of the khandhas. That probably could be called "loss of capacity" but in a good way. :-) Ken H #92906 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:41 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Thanks, Connie! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/23/2008 5:38:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: The link doesn't seem to work, Connie. ---------------------------------------- c: sorry. i guess you could just go to hulu.com, movie section, and put koyaanisqatsi in the search block. Wish I could say "enjoy"! peace, connie #92907 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:53 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/23/2008 6:26:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: It's strange that you should accuse Nina, of all people, of advocating blocking out and censorship. Isn't that what the formal meditators try to do? -------------------------------------------- Howard: I haven't a clue as to what formal meditators are. But as for there question of whether that is what meditators try to do, no it is not. The jhanas, repeatedly urged by the Buddha, are not states of censorship, but of expansion of consciousness with kusala factors, and the suppression of hindrances. Of course, if that suppression is the censorship you have in mind, take it up with the Buddha. On the other hand, if you had in mind the first two elements of Right Effort, well, take that up with the Buddha: [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. ========================== With metta, Howard #92908 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. kenhowardau Hi Connie (Howard and Nina), I posted my contribution to this thread before getting up to date. Otherwise, I would have mentioned this: ----------- C: > i'm in the favorably impressed camp as far as the Elder's not knowing here. 60 years an embryo; no time at all. ----------- Yes, when we compare the countless aeons spent admiring paintings and trees and the like, 60 years devoted to nama and rupa is the least we can do. :-) BTW, that video you linked us to was for viewing 'within the USA only.' Never mind, I think I can imagine. Ken H > c: yeah & as far as idealically goes, i think the Buddha compared life's worth to something else with the nutrients fairly sucked out of it. > #92909 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:11 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. kenhowardau Hi Howard, This is something I will never tire of discussing. Thanks for another opportunity: ---- H: > I haven't a clue as to what formal meditators are. ---- The term 'formal meditation' covers any kind of meditation that can be understood in a conventional sense. Satipatthana, on the other hand, is the arising of namas and rupas by conditions. ---------------- H: > But as for the question of whether that is what meditators try to do, no it is not. ---------------- Well, you have spoken on many occasions about creating a calm, pliant, state of mind in preparation for satipatthana. That sort of practice can be conventionally understood. It is also the sort of 'blocking out and censorship (of non-calm, unsuitable states of mind)' that I was referring to. --------------------- H: > The jhanas, repeatedly urged by the Buddha, are not states of censorship, but of expansion of consciousness with kusala factors, and the suppression of hindrances. ---------------------- Yes, and ultimately they are namas that arise by conditions. --------------------------------- H: > Of course, if that suppression is the censorship you have in mind, take it up with the Buddha. On the other hand, if you had in mind the first two elements of Right Effort, well, take that up with the Buddha: [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. ----------------------------------- Thanks, but I have no quarrel with the teaching of conditionality.:-) However, if you try to tell me those quotes are referring to conventionally understood practices . . . Ken H #92910 From: "connie" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:35 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nichiconn hey, Ken, kh: BTW, that video you linked us to was for viewing 'within the USA only.' Never mind, I think I can imagine. c: o, my bad! googling koyaanisqatsi came up with another link you might try: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5539613947839465921 but yeah, you can probably imagine well enough ... throw in a bunch of time lapse segments of pretty much anything & everything with such smooth transitions from one subject to another that the jolt is all the worse for it & leave out all dialog in favor of keeping up the nice background music with the droned hopi chanting... skip the very, very end where the translations of a few of the droned predictions kind of ruin it, imo, though not enough to make what seemed 60 years of waiting for yourself to just stop watching any more the wasted. images, abstract concepts, ideas... on and on... roll 'em, but be forewarned: it's a cult film. peace, curmudgeonly connie #92911 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:15 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/23/2008 8:11:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, This is something I will never tire of discussing. Thanks for another opportunity: ---- H: > I haven't a clue as to what formal meditators are. ---- The term 'formal meditation' covers any kind of meditation that can be understood in a conventional sense. Satipatthana, on the other hand, is the arising of namas and rupas by conditions. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, no it isn't, Ken, because that is ALWAYS happening! ---------------------------------------- ---------------- H: > But as for the question of whether that is what meditators try to do, no it is not. ---------------- Well, you have spoken on many occasions about creating a calm, pliant, state of mind in preparation for satipatthana. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, in PREPARATION - yes. --------------------------------------- That sort of practice can be conventionally understood. It is also the sort of 'blocking out and censorship (of non-calm, unsuitable states of mind)' that I was referring to. -------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! That's called "the suppression of the hindrances," which, BTW, is probably the best definition of meditation there is. -------------------------------------- --------------------- H: > The jhanas, repeatedly urged by the Buddha, are not states of censorship, but of expansion of consciousness with kusala factors, and the suppression of hindrances. ---------------------- Yes, and ultimately they are namas that arise by conditions. -------------------------------------- Howard: Duh! ---------------------------------- --------------------------------- H: > Of course, if that suppression is the censorship you have in mind, take it up with the Buddha. On the other hand, if you had in mind the first two elements of Right Effort, well, take that up with the Buddha: [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. ----------------------------------- Thanks, but I have no quarrel with the teaching of conditionality.:-) However, if you try to tell me those quotes are referring to conventionally understood practices . . . -------------------------------------------- Howard: ZZZZZZZZ! Oops, sorry - I drifted off. ;-)) -------------------------------------------- Ken H ========================== With metta, Howard #92912 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/23/2008 9:54:27 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: In the above, five sense bases are acknowledged, yet 'consciousness' is said to 'alter its attention,' and a notion of 'dominant experience' is offered. This is mere, mundane, worldly armchair psychology of perception and attention. Where in the texts does it show this, except in Psychology 101? ;-) ................................................... TG: So 'attention' focuses on one of the six sense experiences for what reason? Or does Abhidhamma go to great pains to define 'attention' but has no clue as to its driving force? I'll be comfortably sitting back in my armchair awaiting a response from the coreless interaction known as Scott. TG OUT #92913 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:16 pm Subject: Short-Cuts to Happiness! bhikkhu0 Friends: Short-Cuts to Happiness: Know that Helping Others helps Yourself! Know that Harmlessness is the prime Protection! Know that Meditation is the Way to Serene Bliss! Know that Dhamma Study is the Way to Certainty! Know that The Noble 8-fold Way makes Deathless! Remember: Buddha awakened by Perfect Self-Enlightenment! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Short-Cuts to Happiness! #92914 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:26 pm Subject: Death any time sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Lodewijk, Ken H, & any friends of Peter's who may read this, Our very dear friend Peter Swan passed away in Bangkok last night after a heart attack. Peter was a little younger than Jon and in good health as far as we knew, swimming and keeping fit and actively pursuing the Dhamma. We never know for any of us what might arise and occur next. Of course, we feel very sad and shocked. We were very, very fond of Peter. Jon had known Peter for 35 years and in fact introduced him to the Dhamma and A.Sujin, having first met him (and Maeve) in Indonesia as I recall. I knew Peter for almost as long, always appreciating his good understanding of the Dhamma and great humour with it. He was always confident in the practice being now, the understanding of dhammas now, no matter what course our lives take. For this confidence and wisdom, he was indeed fortunate and such understanding will condition more understanding in future lives I have no doubt. The sorrow and sadness we feel is for ourselves and our loss. May we instead rejoice that we were able to share the Dhamma with Peter and may it be a reminder to develop understanding and all kinds of kusala and share the little wisdom we have with each other while we have the opportunity to do so. We're planning to go to Bangkok for the weekend, for the last of the funeral services. "Look: while relatives are watching, tearful and groaning, men are carried off one by one, like cattle being led to the slaughter. "So death and ageing are endemic to the world. Therefore the wise do not grieve seeing the nature of the world. "You cannot know his path as to where he has come from, or where he is going to. So it makes no sense to grieve for him. <....> "The man who has taken out the dart, who has no clinging, who has obtained peace of mind, passed beyond all grief, this man, free from grief, is still.." Sn, 8 Salla Sutta, "The Dart", (Saddhatissa transl.) Metta, Sarah ========== #92915 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:21 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 7, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, We cling to sati and we try to control it. Khun Sujin reminded us that sati is sankhårakkhandha, the khandha of “formations” or activities. We learn through the Abhidhamma that there are five khandhas: rúpakkhandha (rúpas) vedanåkkhandha (feelings) saññåkkhandha (remembrance or perception) sankhårakkhandha (formations or activities) viññånakkhandha (cittas) In the khandha of “formations” are included all cetasikas, mental factors, except feeling and remembrance. Thus, all sobhana cetasikas (beautiful mental factors) and akusala cetasikas are included in sankhårakkhandha. Both good qualities and bad qualities have been accumulated from life to life. Sankhårakkhandha conditions this moment of kusala citta or of akusala citta. The sobhana cetasikas that have been accumulated support one another so that they can condition this moment of right awareness. All the moments of kusala such as generosity, síla, mettå, the moments of studying and considering the Dhamma are conditions for the growth of paññå. If there was very little sati in the past how can we expect a great deal of mindfulness today? Khun Sujin said: “Sankhårakkhandha, we all read about it. But at this moment of wanting to do something about sati, one forgets about sankhårakkhandha. It is not self, it is the khandha of formations. What has been accumulated until this moment will be a condition for the arising of sati. It can arise if the conditions are right.” We may not have considered enough the Dhamma in our daily life. We may have misconceptions about the object of sati: any reality which appears now. Or we may cling to calm; we may forget that the aim of the development of vipassanå is more understanding of the object which appears, not calm. When the conditions are not right sati cannot arise, it is sankhårakkhandha. Knowing that sati is sankhårakkhandha will prevent us from expecting the impossible and from becoming discouraged when there is lack of sati. It will prevent us from trying to control sati. We should know that we have accumulated conditions for all kinds of defilements. When there are conditions for sati it arises already, before we thought about it. It arises and performs its function of being mindful of the reality appearing at the present moment. Our interest in the Dhamma today could not arise without conditions for it. In past lives we must have listened to the Dhamma. We listen again today and we shall listen again in the future, only in order to understand nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. If we are not forgetful of the realities which appear and we develop understanding with a sincere inclination, nåma can be known as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. ****** Nina. #92916 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:27 am Subject: Series Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, If we do not know that our life is only nåma and rúpa, we are bound to take realities for self. We are full of the concept of self and this can only be eradicated completely by satipatthåna. Sati can be aware and begin to investigate the characteristics of nåma and rúpa which appear. In the beginning, when sati is aware, there cannot yet be clear understanding of the realities which appear as nåma and as rúpa. The understanding may be so weak that it is hardly noticeable. Understanding develops only gradually, it can eliminate ignorance stage by stage; ignorance cannot be immediately eradicated. It is just as in the case of the knife-handle someone holds each day and which wears off only a little at a time. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (III, Middle Fifty, Ch V, § 101, Adze-handle) that the Buddha, while he was in Såvatthí, said to the monks that defilements can be eradicated by realizing the arising and falling away of the five khandhas. This cannot be achieved “by not knowing, by not seeing.” If someone would just wish for the eradication of defilements and he would be neglectful of the development of understanding, defilements cannot be eradicated. Only by the development of understanding, defilements can gradually be eliminated. We read: “Just as if, monks, when a carpenter or carpenter’s apprentice looks upon his adze-handle and sees thereon his thumb-mark and his finger- marks he does not thereby know: “Thus and thus much of my adze-handle has been worn away today, thus much yesterday, thus much at other times.” But he knows the wearing away of it just by its wearing away. Even so, monks, the monk who dwells attentive to self-training has not this knowledge: “Thus much and thus much of the åsavas has been worn away today, thus much yesterday, and thus much at other times.” But he knows the wearing away of them just by their wearing away.” Understanding has to be developed for an endlessly long time. Some people dislike it that sati and paññå develop only very gradually, but there is no other way. If someone is impatient and tries to combine different ways of practice in order to hasten the development of paññå, he makes his life very complicated. ********** Nina. #92917 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 2. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314, part 2. The Tiika refers to a verse about the succession of khandhas, which is given in full in the Co. to the Mahaanidaanasutta: N: The three realms of existence are the sensuous planes, the ruupabrahma planes and the aruupabrahma planes. The four kinds of generation are birth by way of egg, of womb, of moisture and apparitional generation. The five destinations (gati): the hell planes, the animal world, the realm of ghosts, the human world and the devaplanes. As to the seven stations of consciousness, and the nine abodes of beings, these include different kinds of rebirth- consciousness, results of kusala kamma of the sense-sphere, of ruupajhaana and aruupajhaana. ---------- Text Vis.: Therefore, practising for his own and others' benefit and welfare, and abandoning other duties: Let a wise man with mindfulness So practise that he may begin To find a footing in the deeps Of the dependent origin. The seventeenth chapter (concluding)'The Description of the Soil in which Understanding Grows' in the Treatise on the Development of Understanding in the 'Path of Purification' composed for the purpose of gladdening good people. -------- N: As to the soil (bhuumi) in which understanding grows, we read Vis. XIV, 32 that the soil is the khandhas, aayatanas, elements, faculties, truths and dependent origination. Purification of siila and of concentration are compared to the roots and the five purifications (dealt with in Ch XVIII and following) which include the development of insight, are compared to the trunk. ******** N: Conclusion: We read how much entangled we are in the cycle. As the Tiika states, entangled by the threefold round of defilements, kamma and vipaaka. At the very beginning of the Visuddhimagga (Ch I, 1) we read: “When a wise man, established well in Virtue, Develops Consciousness and Understanding, Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious He succeeds in disentangling this tangle (S I, 13)” It is said that tangle is a term for the network of craving. The final verse of this section of the Vis. is an exhortation to the development of sati sampaja~n~na: 'Let a wise man (pa.n.dito) with mindfulness, so practise...' . The text literally states: 'always mindful, sadaa sato'. Without awareness and understanding of the dhamma appearing now one will not understand the Dependent Origination and not disentangle the triple round, the tangle of ignorance and craving. The Sammohavinodanii, Dispeller of Delusion, also deals with the Dependent Origination in a similar wording and it gives at the end of the Abhidhamma Division (p. 262) an exhortation to develop the way leading out of the cycle: <[Therefore] in accordance with the Order Consisting of Competency-Learning-Reflection-Practice The wise act always in regard thereto for there is nothing other than that which more needs to be done.> As we read in the subco. to the mahaanidaanasutta as to the first two stages of tender insight, these This reminds us to persevere with the development of understanding of all dhammas appearing in our daily life. There is nothing other than that which more needs to be done. ******* The End. ------- Nina. #92918 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Death any time nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 24-nov-2008, om 6:26 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > He was always confident in the practice being now, the > understanding of dhammas now, no matter what course our lives take. > For this confidence and wisdom, he was indeed fortunate and such > understanding will condition more understanding in future lives I > have no doubt. ------- N: Thank you for your post with good reminders of death at any time. We need that again and again, because still, death is so unexpected although it is natural. I am so glad you both are able to go to the funeral services. Nina. #92919 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi TG and Howard, Op 23-nov-2008, om 21:09 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > TG: I could almost agree with this statement....I said almost! LOL The > color comment I have to take issue with. If this was a true > statement, we > couldn't perceive objects on a black and white TV. Not to mention > many other > things...low light levels, color blindness, etc. Color is not the > primary > issue for seeing-object...light is. ------- N: It does not matter whether we call it colour, light or visible object, but it is just that which impinges on the eyesense so that there are conditions for seeing. Howard, you should have expressed your aversion before, that is better than smothering it. I said: investigate further. Lets us forget about retina and whatnot, all these science terms, that is another field. Close your eyes, open them, is there any difference? This may help people who never attended to seeing, only considering what they 'saw', or rather perceived: people and things. How often in a day do we attend to just seeing? Don't we confuse it with perceiving things? This attending to seeing is not yet awareness, but beginning to understand seeing intellectually can condition later on direct awareness and understanding. You may say, I know all this, no problem. However, we should not believe that it is easy to directly understand seeing as it is, visible object as it is. As I wrote in my Vis. study: the subco. to the mahaanidaanasutta stated as to the first two stages of tender insight, these Seeing, what is visible, all objects of daily life can be objects of repeated understanding. ------ Nina. #92920 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Death any time upasaka_howard Dear Sarah & Jon (and Nina, Lodewijk, and Ken) - In a message dated 11/24/2008 12:26:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Our very dear friend Peter Swan passed away in Bangkok last night after a heart attack. Peter was a little younger than Jon and in good health as far as we knew, swimming and keeping fit and actively pursuing the Dhamma. We never know for any of us what might arise and occur next. ============================== I'm so sorry for your loss, and for your shock and sadness, and, of course, sorry for your friend and his family. As you say, Sarah, our lives are fragile. We need to use each moment well, if we are able, and somehow we need to learn to hold on only lightly. We are so vulnerable, we worldlings, and for us, not yet free of self and grasping, grief is the price paid for loving - a steep price, but worth it. With metta, Howard #92921 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:02 am Subject: Re: Death any time szmicio Dear Sarah, I think you should discuss Dhamma with us more often here. The best way to pay respect to your friend ;> I want to hear more dhamma from you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Nina, Lodewijk, Ken H, & any friends of Peter's who may read this, > > #92922 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/24/2008 4:15:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG and Howard, Op 23-nov-2008, om 21:09 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > TG: I could almost agree with this statement....I said almost! LOL The > color comment I have to take issue with. If this was a true > statement, we > couldn't perceive objects on a black and white TV. Not to mention > many other > things...low light levels, color blindness, etc. Color is not the > primary > issue for seeing-object...light is. ------- N: It does not matter whether we call it colour, light or visible object, but it is just that which impinges on the eyesense so that there are conditions for seeing. Howard, you should have expressed your aversion before, that is better than smothering it. I said: investigate further. Lets us forget about retina and whatnot, all these science terms, that is another field. ------------------------------------------ Howard: And it is not my approach. My approach is experiential - seeing (consciousness) and seen. ----------------------------------------- Close your eyes, open them, is there any difference? This may help people who never attended to seeing, only considering what they 'saw', or rather perceived: people and things. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, there is difference just as there is difference in visible object from moment to moment, depending on a multitude of conditions. With eyes closed, there is greater homogeneity to the visible object, and it is darker in intensity. ----------------------------------------- How often in a day do we attend to just seeing? Don't we confuse it with perceiving things? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Unless we pay attention to what is actually what. ------------------------------------------ This attending to seeing is not yet awareness, but beginning to understand seeing intellectually can condition later on direct awareness and understanding. You may say, I know all this, no problem. However, we should not believe that it is easy to directly understand seeing as it is, visible object as it is. As I wrote in my Vis. study: the subco. to the mahaanidaanasutta stated as to the first two stages of tender insight, these ---------------------------------------- Howard: All that you discuss here is other than the matter of whether we still see with eyes closed - which we certainly do. Seeing with eyes closed is what I was writing about. It is 1) thinking of seeing as not merely a phenomenological matter, and 2) confusing seeing with visual recognition (i.e., eye-door sa~n~na) that lead one to think that s/he does not see with eyes closed. -------------------------------------- Seeing, what is visible, all objects of daily life can be objects of repeated understanding. ------ Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #92923 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "So 'attention' focuses on one of the six sense experiences for what reason?..." Scott: Attention (manasikaara-cetasika)) is said to arise with each moment of consciousness, having as its object the same object held by citta. It falls away with citta and the object. So yes, manasikaara has its characteristic and function - 'focusing', as it is put above - but it is not 'on' all the time. When it arises it is the 'focusing' occurring in that moment, and then it is gone. TG: "...Or does Abhidhamma go to great pains to define 'attention'..." Scott: In the Dhammasa"nga.ni, the phrase 'or whatever other, incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion' (p.4), provided space for the Commetators to describe attention (manasikaara). In the Atthasaalinii (p.175)) it is noted: "'Attention' is a mode of work, working in the mind (Kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaaro ''manasikaaro). It makes mind, so to speak, different from the previous mind. It is of three kinds: Attention which regulates the object , attention which regulates process-consciousness, attention which regulates apperception. Of these, (a) that which regulates the object is called attention because it makes [the object] in the mind. It has the characteristic of driving associated states towards the object, the function of joining associated states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is included in the aggregate of mental coefficients and should be regarded as the charioteer of associated states because it regulates the object. (b) Attention which regulates process-consciousness is a synonym for the adverting mind at the five-doors; and (c) attention which regulates apperception is as synonym for mind-door-adverting. These two (b) (c) are not intended here..." "Kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaaro 'manasikaaro'. Purimamanato visadisa.m mana.m karotiitipi manasikaaro. Svaaya.m aaramma.napa.tipaadako viithipa.tipaadako javanapa.tipaadakoti tippakaaro. Tattha aaramma.napa.tipaadako manasmi.m kaaroti manasikaaro. So saara.nalakkha.no, sampayuttaana.m aaramma.ne sampayojanaraso, aaramma.naabhimukhabhaavapaccupa.t.thaano, sa"nkhaarakkhandhapariyaapanno. Aaramma.napa.tipaadakattena sampayuttaana.m saarathi viya da.t.thabbo. Viithipa.tipaadakoti pana pa~ncadvaaraavajjanasseta.m adhivacana.m. Javanapa.tipaadakoti manodvaaraavajjanassa. Na te idha adhippetaa." TG: "...but has no clue as to its driving force?..." Scott: See above, as to characteristic and function. I'm surprised to see reference to a 'driving force' suggested in relation to attention. I'm assuming this is meant analogically, since, as I understand the view, there can be no 'driving force' inhering in a state given that there are no states with characteristics. Can you explain what seems to be an inconsistency in the view? How does the view explain attention? Sincerely, Scott. #92924 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (28-30) scottduncan2 Dear All, Following on: #92506 Threes (24-27) (cy: #92576, #92706). CSCD Tayo raasii â€" micchattaniyato raasi, sammattaniyato raasi, aniyato raasi. Walshe DN 33.1.10(28) Three accumulations: evil with fixed result,*1035 good with fixed result,*1036 indeterminate. Olds [ 3.28 ] Three piles[ 3.28 ]: certainly disagreeable piles; certainly consummate piles; uncertain piles. RD's [ 217 ][ 3.28 ] Three 'heaps,' to wit, that of wrong-doing entailing immutable evil results, that of well-doing entailing immutable3.28 good results, and that of everything not so determined. *walshe: 1035 Certain crimes (as parricide, cf. DN 2.100) have a fixed result which cannot be avoided. {p.108: DN 2.100. 'Indeed, Sire, transgression overcame you when you deprived your father, that good man and just king, of his life. But since you have acknowledged the transgression and confessed it as is right, we will accept it. For he who acknowledges his transgression as such and confesses it for betterment in future, will grow in the Ariyan discipline.'} 1036 When the first path-moment (or Stream-Entry, n.1034) has been gained, progress is inevitable, and retrogression to 'states of woe' is impossible. **olds: [ 3.28 ] (raasii:) PED: 1. heap, quantity, mass; 2. (store of ) wealth, riches (MO: he made a pile) 3. a sign of the Zodiac (the 12 as given at Abhp 61 are: mesa, usabha, methuna, kakka.ta, siiha, ka~n~naa, tulaa, vicchikaa, dhanu, makara, kumbha, miina; or the ram, bull, twins, crab, lion, virgin, balance, scorpion, bow, capricorn, waterpot, fish (MO: and raasii?); 4. in logic: group, aggregate, category, congery freq. in Abhidhamma-literature where 3 "accumulations" are spoken of, viz. micchatta-niyato raasi, sammatta-niyato r., aniyato r. or "wrongdoing entailing immutable evil results, that of well-doing entailing immutable good results, and that of everything not so determined". . . In the 5 factors of individuality (body and mind) khandhaa are explained as meaning raasii. micchatta-niyato raasii[miccha=low, bad, contrary, opposite, opposed, opposite samma] a wrong thing, in the Pali, a state opposing any of the 8/10 "folds" of the Magga; niyataPED: restrained, bound to, constrained to, sure (as to the future), fixed (in its consequences), certain, assured, necessary; sammatta-niyato raasiihigh, consummate, best (again, of the 8/10 anghas of the Magga; aniyato raasii not settled, uncertain, doubtful This is a list of ways to classify piles; the specific nature of those piles is not given. In the discussion groups on the web the term "accumulations" is thrown around very liberally, connected with all sorts of kamma, and with the implication that the predominant mode of kamma is the fixed sort. What we have in the literature is one or two extraordinary deeds described as fixed in outcome: the murder of one's parents, the drawing of the blood of a Tathagata with intent to injure, creating a schism in the Sangha; some extraordinary good deed done for the Buddha. I think a very good case can be made that below this extra-ordinary level most deeds fall into the uncertain-outcome pile as even these deeds of fixed nature are not absolutely fixed in the sense of either form or duration, but only in the sense of the inevitability of their painful or pleasant nature. Why do I keep returning to this issue? Because it is a matter of motivation. Holding on to the idea that what happens to us and what we experience is entirely pre-ordained by our long-distant, previous kamma (here I am not speaking about that which we experience which is not a result of kamma -- change in seasons, etc., but I am saying that we are able to change our very-near-future circumstances as dictated by kamma) or that the good we do now will not benefit us until some far distant point in the future, leaves us without motivation to improve things (even to the point of escape) in the here and now. This is, the way I see it, a big mistake, and holding on to this view is to be teaching as Dhamma what is not Dhamma, which is dangerous to those who follow as well as to those who teach it. Remember: "There are these three forms of kamma the doing of which moves the doer thereof in the upward direction starting from the first step: for the one who harms: non-harming, for the thief: not taking what is not given; for the liar, not saying what is not untrue. ***rd: 3.28Niyata: certain, fixed. The first are the crimes enumerated in Points, 80, n. 5; df. p. 177, n.1; the second, the fourfold Path and its fruits. On 'heap' see op. cit. XXI, 7 CSCD Tayo tamaa [tisso ka'nkhaa (bahuusu) a.t.thakathaa oloketabbaa] â€" atiita.m vaa addhaana.m aarabbha ka'nkhati vicikicchati naadhimuccati na sampasiidati, anaagata.m vaa addhaana.m aarabbha ka'nkhati vicikicchati naadhimuccati na sampasiidati, etarahi vaa paccuppanna.m addhaana.m aarabbha ka'nkhati vicikicchati naadhimuccati na sampasiidati. Walshe DN 33.1.10(29) Three obscurations:*1037 One hesitates, vacillates, is undecided, is unsettled about the past, the future, the present. Olds [ 3.29 ] Three confusions[ 3.29 ]: The onset of and lingering confusion, doubt, inability to clear up one's mind and distress about the past. The onset of and lingering confusion, doubt, inability to clear up one's mind and distress about the future. The onset of and lingering confusion, doubt, inability to clear up one's mind and distress about the present. RD's [ 3.29 ] Three doubts,3.29 to wit, doubts, perplexity, inability to decide, dissatisfaction concerning past, future and present. *walshe: 1037 RD reads kankhaa 'doubts'. **olds: [ 3.29 ] (kankhaa: confusion Atiita.m vaa : about the back/past addhaana.m aarabbha kankhati vicikicchati naadhimuccati na sampasiidati: the onset of and lingering confusion, doubt, inability to make up one's mind, disequillibrium concerning the Anaagata.m vaa : about the ahead/future Etarahi vaa paccuppanna.m: about the now/present/meanwhile Walshe: obscurations: hesitation, vacillation is undecided is unsettled about the Rhys Davids: doubts: doubts, perplexity, inability to decide, dissatisfaction concerning the ***rd: 3.29B. reads tamaa for kankhaa: 'obfuscations.' CSCD Tii.ni tathaagatassa arakkheyyaani â€" parisuddhakaayasamaacaaro aavuso tathaagato, natthi tathaagatassa kaayaduccarita.m, ya.m tathaagato rakkheyya â€" ti. Parisuddhavaciisamaacaaro aavuso, tathaagato, natthi tathaagatassa vaciiduccarita.m, ya.m tathaagato rakkheyya â€" ti. Parisuddhamanosamaacaaro, aavuso, tathaagato, natthi tathaagatassa manoduccarita.m ya.m tathaagato rakkheyya â€" ti. Walshe DN 33.1.10(30) ‘Three things a Tathaagata has no need to guard against: A Tathaagata is perfectly pure in bodily conduct, in speech and in thought. There is no misdeed of body, speech or thought which he must conceal lest anyone should get to hear about it. Olds [ 3.30 ] Three unguarded things of a Tathagata. A Tathagatha, friends is entirely pure with regard to that done by the body, such that he need not think: "Let none know this of me." A Tathagata, friends, is entirely pure with regard to that done by way of speech, such that he need not think: "Let none know this of me." A Tathagata, friends, is entirely pure with regard to that done by way of mind, such that he need not think: "Let none know this of me."[ 3.30 ] RD's [ 3.30 ] Three things which a Buddha3.30 has not to guard against: a Buddha, friends, is pure in conduct whether of act, or speech, or thought. There is no misdeed of any kind concerning which he must take good care lest another should come to know of it. **olds: [ 3.30 ] Rhys Davids footnotes: "Tathagata, here clearly meaning a Buddha, at least according to commentarial tradition, since B. proceeds to show the little difference in the case of 'other Arahants,' who need to take care. He instances the conduct of Sariputta in the 'Catumasutta,' M.I, 459, explaining the latter's motive." (See Majjhima #67: PTS, MLS II:#67, pp:128; WP: pp560, which does not deal with the same situation). The point here is that some, having done a deed in the past, or being in the habit of doing such deeds in the present, feel the need to keep this behavior secret, and their close followers, who may be aware of the behavior, keep quiet about it to others. We have the recent example of the guru who claimed never to eat who was addicted to McDonald's hamburgers, whose secret eating habits were kept from exposure by his close followers. There is also the case of the Catholic Church hiding the child molesting behavior of some priests. What is being spoken of here is a freedom from feeling the need to guard against exposure, not freedom from possible exposure or criticism. Even the Buddhas face criticism: "They will criticize you when you do right and they will criticize you when you do wrong, and they will criticize you when you do nothing..." Certainly today there are those who would criticize and call immoral the Buddha's behavior in leaving his wife and child prior to becoming a Tathagata (today (7/16/2002), in the USA, he could be subjected to fines and jailed for this!). While this freedom from feeling the need to guard is a natural consequence and attribute of Arahantship (because the Arahant has given up any ambitions with regard to the world), it could be the attribute of anyone who gave up the idea of acting on fear of exposure due to the need for wrongly earned fame or a false good reputation. -- Having one's past bad or questionable behavior be exposed publicly could certainly be embarassing, but knowledge of the possibility of embarassment does not necessarily dictate any attempt to hide such or guard against exposure. (What it may do is make one a tad shy of fame, but short of Arahantship, this is not such a bad fear to have (see: Fame, Favors and Gains). The difference is that the Tathagata (and I say this includes the Arahant) has no need to give this any thought. ***rd: 3.30Tathaagata, here clearly meaning a Buddha, at least according to commentarial tradition, since B. proceeds to show the little difference in the case of 'other Arahants,' who needed to take care. He instances the conduct of Saariputta in the 'Caatuma-sutta,' M. I, 459, explaining the latter's motive. Cf. Ang. IV, 82, where the 'friends' is omitted. Sincerely, Scott, connie, and Nina. #92925 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death any time sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Mon, 24/11/08, szmicio wrote: >I think you should discuss Dhamma with us more often here. The best way to pay respect to your friend ;> I want to hear more dhamma from you. ..... S: thanks for your kind encouragement, as always, Lukas. Yes, I agree that discussing Dhamma and reflecting more deeply on its meaning is an excellent way to pay respect. The friendship with those who share an understanding and respect for the Dhamma is a very special friendship. We've experienced several 'shocks' in the last month or so - it's not been an easy time for us. This is of course because we remain susceptible to such worldly conditions of gain and loss and so on. With more understanding of the realities now, such as seeing and visible object, the real refuge, gradually lobha's grasp on such worldly conditions will lessen, but it takes a long time with a lit of courage, patience and wisdom. Metta, Sarah p.s You were asking about the Vibhanga. Even though it's a longer text (in 2 volumes), I would recommend you consider purchasing a copy of its commentary, the Sammohavinodani (Dispeller of Delusion) in preferance to the Vibhanga translation. I've had greater use out of the Sammohavinodani, full of wonderful detail and a great translation, even though I've had the Vibhanga far longer. ============== #92926 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:31 am Subject: Re: Death any time scottduncan2 Dear Sarah and Jon, Regarding: S: "Our very dear friend Peter Swan passed away in Bangkok last night after a heart attack. Peter was a little younger than Jon and in good health as far as we knew, swimming and keeping fit and actively pursuing the Dhamma. We never know for any of us what might arise and occur next..." Scott: True. Peace to you both. Sincerely, Scott. #92927 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Death any time sarahprocter... Dear Howard, You're always very kind indeed. (Btw, I should have included Ann, Azita, Sukin and other friends who read regularly here - Nina's and Ken H's were on the page.) --- On Mon, 24/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: ============ ========= ========= H:> I'm so sorry for your loss, and for your shock and sadness, and, of course, sorry for your friend and his family. As you say, Sarah, our lives are fragile. We need to use each moment well, if we are able, and somehow we need to learn to hold on only lightly. We are so vulnerable, we worldlings, and for us, not yet free of self and grasping, grief is the price paid for loving - a steep price, but worth it. ..... S: Yes, we are so vulnerable as you say and I like your reminder 'to hold on only lightly'. In truth, of course, the holding on and grasping is as it's conditioned to be at any moment, but how fortunate we are to have heard and considered even a little about the Four Noble Truths and to know what the real cause of dukkha is, whether we're referred to all that's unpleasant, to the change of what is pleasant or to the continuation of impermanent conditioned dhammas in samsara. I know you've experienced the loss of many friends and family members as well, Howard. It is inevitable and yet, like you do, we can have compassion and understanding for others who experience just the same, again and again. We can also be reminded that what we take for family, friends and Self, are only fleeting namas and rupas and this does not reduce or detract from the compassion and understanding felt at all. Thank you for your kind friendship always, Howard. The reminders of death do help to put our daily problems and quibbles into perspective. Metta, Sarah p.s To Peter's friends - I've heard his son Saul and family will be coming up from Australia for the funeral services. Maeve (his first wife) will as well if possible. ================== #92928 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Object condition szmicio Dear Nina I like those subcoments about "repeated understanding" i find at you Vis. I have one question. I quote your Conditions - aramanapaccaya: "The arahat can with kiriyacitta, which is indeterminate (avyakata) dhamma, review kusala citta and akusala citta which formerly arose. Then kusala dhamma and akusala dhamma condition indeterminate dhamma by way of object. Kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma can be object condition for different types of citta. " But how something which doesnt exist anymore(former akusala/kusala dhammas of arahat) can be an object condition? I always think that just last citta can condition the next one by the way of aramanapaccya. For example, when we givie some food to homeless-that is kusala citta, and the last kusala citta can conditioned akusala citta by the way of aramanapaccaya. But when we talk that present citta of arahat is conditioned by something what was 2 months ago, it a pannatti. "The arahat can with kiriyacitta, which is indeterminate (avyakata) dhamma, review kusala citta and akusala citta which formerly arose." OK. I understand this.it can be. It's thinking with kusala it's ok. Some old stories are the object of present citta which thinks with kusala of it. But that's not arammana-paccaya, but just thinking with kusala about old stories. "Then kusala dhamma and akusala dhamma condition indeterminate dhamma by way of object. Kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma can be object condition for different types of citta." I really dont understand it. best wishes Lukas #92929 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (28-30) nilovg Dear Scott and Connie, I am away from Thursday until Monday, may take some time. But I take text and dict. with me. Some of these commentaries are very long, like the one on the Buddha, but I am glad to work with your helpful notes and the different translations you give each time. Nina. Op 24-nov-2008, om 14:29 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Following on: #92506 Threes (24-27) #92930 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (28-30) scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding: N: "I am away from Thursday until Monday, may take some time..." Scott: No worries. Thank you very much for all the work you put into this project! Sincerely, Scott. #92931 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 11/24/2008 2:15:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: It does not matter whether we call it colour, light or visible object, but it is just that which impinges on the eyesense so that there are conditions for seeing. ................................................. TG: That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. 100% agreement here. Yes. TG #92932 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/24/2008 6:12:19 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "So 'attention' focuses on one of the six sense experiences for what reason?..." Scott: Attention (manasikaara-Scott: AtScott: Attention (manasikaara-ni, th incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion' (p.4), provided space for the Commetators to describe attention (manasikaara)(manasikaara). In the Atthasaalinii (p.175) "'Attention' is a mode of work, working in the mind (Kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaaro ''manasikaaro)manasmi.m kaaro ''manasikaaro). It mak from the previous mind. It is of three kinds: Attention which regulates the object , attention which regulates process-consciousneprocess-consciousness, attention which regula these, (a) that which regulates the object is called attention because it makes [the object] in the mind. It has the characteristic of driving associated states towards the object, the function of joining associated states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is included in the aggregate of mental coefficients and should be regarded as the charioteer of associated states because it regulates the object. (b) Attention which regulates process-consciousneprocess-consciousness is a synonym for the a five-doors; and (c) attention which regulates apperception is as synonym for mind-door-advertingsynonym for mind-door-adverting. Th here..." ..................................................... TG: Again what we have here is a general description of what attention is doing. But no indication whatsoever as to "why" it is doing it. No indication whatsoever as to "why" attention pays attention to some objects and not others. Why it functions as it does is actually a very essential aspect of attention if you are going to analytically deal with it. For whatever reason, there seems to be no attempt to do so here...so a valuable aspect of conditional relations is missing. .................................................................. "Kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaaro 'manasikaaro'"Kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaa mana.m karotiitipi manasikaaro. Svaaya.m aaramma.napa.mana.m ka viithipa.tipaadako javanapa.tipaadakotviithipa.tipaadako javan aaramma.napa.aaramma.napa.tipaadako manasmi.m kaaroti saara.nalakkha.saara.nalakkha.no, sampayutt aaramma.naabhimukhaaaramma.naabhiaaramma.n sa"nkhaarakkhandhapsa"nkhaarakkhandhapariyaasa"nkhaarakkha sampayuttaana.sampayuttaana.m saarathi viya da.t.thabbo. sampayutta pa~ncadvaaraavajjanpa~ncadvaaraavajjanasseta.m adhivacana.m.p manodvaaraavajjanasmanodvaaraavajjanassa. Na TG: "...but has no clue as to its driving force?..." Scott: See above, as to characteristic and function. I'm surprised to see reference to a 'driving force' suggested in relation to attention. I'm assuming this is meant analogically, since, as I understand the view, there can be no 'driving force' inhering in a state given that there are no states with characteristics. ....................................................... TG: You misunderstood. The "driving force" is not "intention's own force," it is the force of the conditions that are supporting it and bound up with it. TG OUT #92933 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... LOL A nice moment of humility. :-) In a message dated 11/23/2008 9:57:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, "...I you would." That should have been, 'if you would.' Otherwise it makes as little sense as the rest of what I say. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #92934 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi TG and Scott, may I butt in? Op 24-nov-2008, om 18:06 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Again what we have here is a general description of what attention is > doing. But no indication whatsoever as to "why" it is doing it. No > indication whatsoever as to "why" attention pays attention to some > objects and not > others. ------- N: Manasikaara goes along with citta that experiences then this, then that object. I wrote in my Conditions, object-condition about this: < Only one object can be experienced at a time. We may wonder why we experience a particular object and why we shift our attention from one object to another. The “Atthasåliní” (Expositor II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 333, 334) explains that the rúpas which can be experienced through the senses be- come objects “by virtue of deliberate inclination” or “by virtue of intrusion”. We should remember that even following our own inclination is conditioned; that there is no self who can determine what kind of object is to be experienced. The “Atthasåliní” gives examples of experiencing an object with “deliberate inclination”: when the bowl (of a monk) is filled with food and offered to him, one who takes up a lump and examines whether it is hard or soft, is considering only the element of solidity, although heat as well as motion are present . As an example of the experience of an object “by virtue of intrusion”, the “Atthasåliní” states that he who slips, knocks his head against a tree or in eating bites on a stone, takes as object only solidity, on account of its intrusiveness, although heat and motion are present as well. Further on the “Atthasåliní states: “But how does the mind shift from an object? In one of two ways:- by one’s wish, or by excess of (a new) object. To expand: - one who goes to festivities held in honour of monasteries, etc., with the express wish of paying homage to the various shrines, to bhikkhus, images, and of seeing the works of carving and painting, and when he has paid his respects and seen one shrine or image, has a desire to pay homage to, and see another, and goes off. This is shifting by one’s wish. And one who stands gazing at a great shrine like a silver mountain peak, when subsequently a full orchestra begins to play, releases the visible object and shifts to audible object; when flowers or scents possessing delightful odour are brought, he releases the audible object and shifts to the olfactory object. Thus the mind is said to shift owing to excess of (a new) object.” When we study and consider the Dhamma we may not hear the sound of traffic, but when the sound is very loud we may hear it. Then that object is intrusive. It is the same when we suffer from violent pains. Then there is an object which is intrusive, we cannot think of anything else but the pain. > Manasikaara experiences the same object as the citta it accompanies. Also, we have to consider what type of citta it accompanies: kusala citta, and then there is wise attanetion, akusala citta, then there is unwise attention, or neither kusala nor akusala. Many different factors condition manasikaara. Nina. #92935 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Object condition nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 24-nov-2008, om 14:22 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > But how something which doesnt exist anymore(former akusala/kusala > dhammas of arahat) can be an object condition? > I always think that just last citta can condition the next one by the > way of aramanapaccya. > > For example, when we give some food to homeless-that is kusala citta, > and the last kusala citta can conditioned akusala citta by the way of > aramanapaccaya. > > But when we talk that present citta of arahat is conditioned by > something what was 2 months ago, it a pannatti. -------- N: Not necessarily. Former kusala or akusala that has fallen away does not change into a concept. We read in the text of the patthana: < Faultless Triplet, Kusala-ttika, VII, Investigation Chapter, pañha- våra, Object, § 404): “Faultless state (kusala dhamma) is related to faultless state by object-condition. After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one) reviews it...> ------ IT does not say one reviews a concept of it. See also this quote: <“Faulty state is related to faultless state by object condition. Learners review the eradicated defilements. They review the uneradicated defilements. They know the defilements addicted to before. > -------------- N: Defilements are the object, not a concept of them, not just a story about defilements. ------- > > L: "The arahat can with kiriyacitta, which is indeterminate (avyakata) > dhamma, review kusala citta and akusala citta which formerly arose." > > OK. I understand this.it can be. It's thinking with kusala it's ok. > Some old stories are the object of present citta which thinks with > kusala of it. But that's not arammana-paccaya, but just thinking with > kusala about old stories. ------- N: it is not thinking of stories. It is pa~n~naa that reviews former kusala and akusala, pa~n~naa is understanding conditions for these without thinking about it. ------ > > "Then kusala dhamma and akusala dhamma condition indeterminate dhamma > by way of object. Kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate > dhamma can be object condition for different types of citta." > I really dont understand it. ------ N: The example above may clarify. You said that just the last citta can condition the next one by the way of aramanapaccya. Only a citta in a former process can be object of a citta later on. Not in the same process. But as we see from the texts, also kusala citta or akusala citta that formerly arose can be object condition for a citta later on. I do not know whether this is clear to you or not yet. Nina. #92936 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi Howard, Op 24-nov-2008, om 14:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > With eyes > closed, there is greater homogeneity to the visible object, and it > is darker in > intensity. > ----------------------------------------- > N: We have a different approach. I am not interested in what you > see with eyes closed. I am interested in plain old seeing with the > aim to become detached. Thinking of my 'experience' does not help. > I do not go about in life seeing with eyes closed. Just our normal seeing now, when the eyes are open: this should be considered. Learning to attend to this, as I said. We have to see it as just a conditioned dhamma. I do not deny that when the eyes are closed there is still something that is seen, but let us now study seeing now, normal seeing. This is already difficult enough. A lot to study, again and again. > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > All that you discuss here is other than the matter of whether we still > see with eyes closed - which we certainly do. Seeing with eyes > closed is what > I was writing about. > It is 1) thinking of seeing as not merely a phenomenological > matter, and > 2) confusing seeing with visual recognition (i.e., eye-door > sa~n~na) that > lead one to think that s/he does not see with eyes closed. > -------------------------------------- N: Our approaches are different, I do not think it helpful to think of phenomenology, sorry. ---- Nina. #92937 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:55 pm Subject: Re: Death any time kenhowardau Hi Sarah and all, This is very sad news. I remember Peter well from my visit to Thailand. I was lucky enough to have some time to talk with just him and Marasi at the Kaeng Krajan pool. He was an extraordinarily good natured man, wasn't he? And also the life of the party - excellent company. There will be a lot of people who will miss him very much. Ken H #92938 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Object condition szmicio Dear Nina, > > > > "Then kusala dhamma and akusala dhamma condition indeterminate dhamma > > by way of object. Kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate > > dhamma can be object condition for different types of citta." > > I really dont understand it. > ------ > N: The example above may clarify. > You said that just the last citta can condition the next one by the > way of aramanapaccya. Only a citta in a former process can be object > of a citta later on. Not in the same process. But as we see from the > texts, also kusala citta or akusala citta that formerly arose can be > object condition for a citta later on. > > I do not know whether this is clear to you or not yet. OK. So old moments of understanding can condition a moment of understanding in the future by the way of aramanapaccaya? So if there is understanding now, can it depends on those past? it looks like some kind of accumulations. best wishes Lukas #92939 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/24/2008 3:11:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 24-nov-2008, om 14:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > With eyes > closed, there is greater homogeneity to the visible object, and it > is darker in > intensity. > ----------------------------------------- > N: We have a different approach. I am not interested in what you > see with eyes closed. ------------------------------------------------ Howard Neither especially am I, Nina. It just happens to be what was being discussed! -------------------------------------------- I am interested in plain old seeing with the > aim to become detached. Thinking of my 'experience' does not help. > I do not go about in life seeing with eyes closed. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! The point of the Dhamma is relinquishment. And we get to that by realizing the tilakkhana, and to that by realizing dependent origination. (BTW, I presume you don't think that I go about with eyes closed, do you?) --------------------------------------- Just our normal seeing now, when the eyes are open: this should be considered. Learning to attend to this, as I said. We have to see it as just a conditioned dhamma. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know, Nina. Not an issue, and not what the thread was about. ----------------------------------------- I do not deny that when the eyes are closed there is still something that is seen --------------------------------------- Howard: Good. Agreement, and that completes the thread! ;-)) -------------------------------------- , but let us now study seeing now, normal seeing. This is already difficult enough. A lot to study, again and again. > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > All that you discuss here is other than the matter of whether we still > see with eyes closed - which we certainly do. Seeing with eyes > closed is what > I was writing about. > It is 1) thinking of seeing as not merely a phenomenological > matter, and > 2) confusing seeing with visual recognition (i.e., eye-door > sa~n~na) that > lead one to think that s/he does not see with eyes closed. > -------------------------------------- N: Our approaches are different, I do not think it helpful to think of phenomenology, sorry. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Phenomenology is the study of experience. The Buddha did think it quite helpful to think about it. Phenomenalism is something else. Not everyone thinks that the Dhamma is a species of phenomenalism, but it is common to categorize the Dhamma in part as falling under phenomenology. -------------------------------------------- ---- Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard #92940 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:57 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. kenhowardau Hi Howard, Thanks for staying awake - almost! :-) ----------- <. . .> KH: > > Satipatthana, on the other hand, is the arising of namas and rupas by conditions. > Howard: Oh, no it isn't, Ken, because that is ALWAYS happening! ------------ Yes, exactly! In a way I was taking liberties with the language, but in another way what I said was perfectly correct, I think. I have noticed lately that some other DSG members also describe satipatthana that way. According to the texts the word has several meanings, but I think it is important to see that, ultimately, they are all the same. Satipatthana can refer to the objects of insight divided into four categories, and it can also mean the insight itself. And it can mean the Buddhist teaching - or the way travelled by Buddhist disciples. I like to think that all those things are summed up by 'The arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas now.' It says it all! Ken H PS: You can wake up now! :-) > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > ZZZZZZZZ! Oops, sorry - I drifted off. ;-)) > -------------------------------------------- #92941 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:40 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/24/2008 4:57:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: PS: You can wake up now! :-) ======================== Hmmm? Wha. ....? Oh, geez, sorry - that seems to be happening a lot! ;-)) With metta, Howard #92942 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 pm Subject: Thank You! ksheri3 Hi Group, A friend of mine that is aware of what I'm attempting to do sent me a card from the TIBETAN AID PROJECT in Berkely, California that speaks for itself: "Seen from Hepo-ri (Panting Hill), dragon-like clouds beginning their descent into Samye Valley provide a beautifully intense backdrop for a small ancient chapel festooned with prayer flags." It's a very profound picture and offers very close pictography found in the structure (walls) of the basement I live in. This same "reflection" is a concept I used when I was trying to explain to a Western neophyte that they cannot be sure of what they see: in the OSOGD's website they portray a picture of a single pillar, is that pillar the Pillar of Mercy or is it the Pillar of Severity? This goes to the iconography of christianity and the mysticism of Western theology since there is a "triad", three parts that make up the whole (see the 3 Kayas, or "the father-son-holy ghost", etc) I thank you all since you are all part of me and what I'm doing/learning in the Buddhist Mysticism practices. toodles, colette #92943 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Nina, Scott, (Anyone interested in the causes of why "attention" does what it does), In a message dated 11/24/2008 12:40:15 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Again what we have here is a general description of what attention is > doing. But no indication whatsoever as to "why" it is doing it. No > indication whatsoever as to "why" attention pays attention to some > objects and not > others. ------- N: Manasikaara goes along with citta that experiences then this, then that object. I wrote in my Conditions, object-condition about this: < Only one object can be experienced at a time. We may wonder why we experience a particular object and why we shift our attention from one object to another. The “AtthasÃ¥liní” (Expositor II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 333, 334) explains that the rúpas which can be experienced through the senses be- come objects “by virtue of deliberate inclination” or “by virtue of intrusion”. ..................................................... TG: Two comments. First of all "by virtue of intrusion." I would gather from this that it fully confirms my belief that the "most dominant experience" become the focus of attention...as it "intrudes" upon what is otherwise the current focus of attention. What do you think Nina? Sound reasonable? 2) My first response to the term "deliberate inclination" was that THAT was an impossibility. There is no "doer" that can "deliberately incline." But reading below, they seem to concede that very point. Which makes me wonder why they included it here in the first place. What's the point in stating a "inaccurate" reason? Anyway, If you agree with my first comment above, Nina, then so far I'm in basic agreement of what's been said so far. ............................................................... We should remember that even following our own inclination is conditioned; that there is no self who can determine what kind of object is to be experienced. ................................................................ TG: This is exactly right of course and therefore invalidates the first point of "deliberate inclination" the AtthasÃ¥liní makes above. Seems odd they just sort of "fudged" a "figurative reason" that they later had to retract anyway. They are apparently just going with a "mundane reason" here. ............................................................ The “AtthasÃ¥liní” gives examples of experiencing an object with “deliberate inclination”: when the bowl (of a monk) is filled with food and offered to him, one who takes up a lump and examines whether it is hard or soft, is considering only the element of solidity, although heat as well as motion are present ............................................................ TG: Again, a very "mundane" example. Doesn't at all present a case of the conditions "driving" the whole attention-process / scenario of their example. As an explanation of what is causing attention to do what it does, I'd consider this very inadequate. ......................................................................... . As an example of the experience of an object “by virtue of intrusion”, the “AtthasÃ¥liní” states that he who slips, knocks his head against a tree or in eating bites on a stone, takes as object only solidity, on account of its intrusiveness, although heat and motion are present as well. Further on the “AtthasÃ¥liní states: ........................................................................... TG: I'd think in these cases the first thing "attention" would pay attention to is the discomfort/pain of the experience. Afterward the mind might examine the cause of the pain and determine stone/solidity. At any rate, what is happening is an experience is "intruding" because it "dominates" the other experiences happening at that time. .............................................................................. .. “But how does the mind shift from an object? In one of two ways:- by one’s wish, or by excess of (a new) object. To expand: - one who goes to festivities held in honour of monasteries, etc., with the express wish of paying homage to the various shrines, to bhikkhus, images, and of seeing the works of carving and painting, and when he has paid his respects and seen one shrine or image, has a desire to pay homage to, and see another, and goes off. This is shifting by one’s wish. And one who stands gazing at a great shrine like a silver mountain peak, when subsequently a full orchestra begins to play, releases the visible object and shifts to audible object; when flowers or scents possessing delightful odour are brought, he releases the audible object and shifts to the olfactory object. Thus the mind is said to shift owing to excess of (a new) object.” ........................................................................... TG: The term "excess" here might as well read as "dominating." All of these example are of one experience after another that "dominates" the "present experience" and therefore leads the mind to focus "attention" onto the new more "commanding" experience. However, there is a flaw above again in that the mind does not shift attention by "wish." That again is self view. The "wish" is the "resultant" and not the root cause. Its like saying the "roof" of a house is the cause for the house. Not a good enough explanation for explaining the cause of why attention does what it does. The tern "intrusion" or "excess" are much better explanations...but incomplete explanations. ......................................................................... When we study and consider the Dhamma we may not hear the sound of traffic, but when the sound is very loud we may hear it. ............................................................................ TG: EXACTLY EXACTLY!!!! This is my point exactly. The new "dominant experience" cause attention to focus toward THAT. .............................................................................. Then that object is intrusive. It is the same when we suffer from violent pains. Then there is an object which is intrusive, we cannot think of anything else but the pain. > .............................................................................. ... TG: Here again, exactly right!!! This completely confirms my hypothesis and armchair psychology 101 as stated by Scott. ;-) Thanks Nina. No need to explain above because you have done it here. Well Scott, all that's left is to see how you're going to wiggle out of this one. TG OUT #92944 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 2. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Congratulations and thank you very much. This has been a very large project, translating the commentary to 256 paragraphs and explaining virtually everything over the course of many months, beginning in February 2006. This dependent origination is a very complex and subtle subject and you have maintained the very highest standards in explaining it. Very well done indeed! Contemplating the 12 stages of dependent origination we begin, little by little, to understand the scope of life, how it works, and how it can be that there is no self that continues or ends. This is more than just insight into the present moment. It is also an appreciation of the consequences of ignorance and willful action, which is at the heart of the truth of dukkha. For me, I know, this is something that will take a very long time to truly understand, but these two years of study has made a big difference, and I thank you again. Larry #92945 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:30 pm Subject: What Exists and what does not Exist? bhikkhu0 Friends: What is it that Exists & What does Not Exist ??? The blessed Buddha said regarding ontology: What is it, bhikkhus, that the wise & clever in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: This the wise & clever in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say, that it does not exist. So also Feeling ... Perception ... Mental Constructions ... a Consciousness, that is permanent, stable, eternal, & not subject to change: This the wise & clever in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say, that it does not exist... That, bhikkhus, is what the wise & clever in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say, that it does not exist. And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise & clever in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise & clever in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say, that it exists! Transient Feelings ... Perceptions ... Mental Constructions, & Consciousness, that is momentary, suffering, & subject to change: this the wise & clever in the world agree upon as existing, & I too say that it exists! That, bhikkhus is what the wise & clever in this world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists... The Dynamics of interdependent re-becoming into being. No existence is Static - the same over time - unchanging.... All existence is Dynamic - never the same- transient & changing! All existence is therefore a Becoming Anew - a momentary rebirth... Again and Again and again and again... Everything breaks up! Everything breaks up, falls apart, and soon vanishes! More on Buddhist Ontology: What exists & how does it exist? http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_Exists.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/ontology.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Advanced_Right_View.htm Existence is Transient, a flickering already passed, which never returns! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya XXII (94); [III 139] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 An Ocean of Dhamma Teaching! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html#Khandha On Clusters! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net What is it that Exists? #92946 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:23 pm Subject: New illustrated Dhammapada with background stories. bhikkhu0 Friends: The famous & popular Dhammapada collection of 423 poems by the Buddha of considerable scope and range have now been updated with illustrations and background stories from the classical ancient commentary. This illustrated & commented Dhammapada is found here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.htm Verse 422: NOBLE The Noble one, the eminent, the excellent one, The outstanding hero, the wise conqueror, pure, clean, awakened and enlightened, him I call a Holy One. Background Story 422 here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.Verse_422.story.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net #92947 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Fri, 21/11/08, Alex wrote: >>--- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is >generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought A:> Dhammayatanna (ideas, mind objects) is impermanent. ..... S: Dhammayatana does not refer to concepts or thoughts, but to dhammas (realities), i.e cetasikas, subtle rupas and in some contexts, nibbana. Cetasikas and subtle rupas are impermanent. Nibbana isn't of course and neither are concepts or ideas. .... A:> If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the ideas are discerned. MN148. http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.148. than.html .... S: You are not comparing like with like. What Howard is referring to above are concepts, pannatti. What MN 148 is referring to is the coming together of the internal and external ayatanas ('bases' in the Nanamoli/Bodhi transl). When the text comes to the last inner ayatana, manayatana, it says: "If anyone says, 'The Mind is self.' that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the mind are discerned....." Here it is referring to mano or citta. Any citta is included in manayatana. all cittas are anatta and arise and fall away. When the text comes to: "If anyone says, 'Mind-objects are self......", it is referring to the last outer ayatana, dhammayatana. All dhammas included here are anatta and impermanent. It isn't referring to concepts or ideas. Even 'mind-objects' is mis-leading here. Metta, Sarah ====== #92948 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 8, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 8 The Buddha’s Excellent Qualities We visited the sacred places of Sri Lanka in order to recollect the excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the arahats. When we were in Anurådhapura we often walked around in the area of the “Mahå-vihåra”, the Great Monastery, where in olden times many arahats had been dwelling. We paid respect at the different stupas and old monuments and in that area we had under the trees Dhamma discussions with the group of foreign monks we were traveling with. We thought of the arahats who had lived in that place; they had developed satipatthåna until all lobha, dosa and moha were eradicated. Do we understand what it means to be without clinging to the self? Do we understand what the qualities of alobha, non-attachment, adosa, non-aversion or kindness, and amoha or paññå really are? The development of satipatthåna will condition such qualities, it will lead to the eradication of all unwholesomeness. The Buddha himself was endowed with wisdom and virtue of the highest degree. When we pay respect to the Buddha we recite the words: “vijjå carana- sampanno”, endowed with wisdom and virtue. Do we know the meaning of these words? Why do we show reverence in front of a Buddha statue, at the places where his relics have been enshrined or at the Bodhitree? We pay respect to all his excellent qualities: to his wisdom, his compassion and his purity. If we do not recollect his excellent qualities while showing reverence, our action is not very beneficial. If one hardly knows whether the citta at this moment is kusala citta or akusala citta can one truly appreciate the Buddha’s excellent qualities? During this journey we came to have a little more understanding of the many moments of akusala citta which arise and we saw how deeply rooted our selfishness is. We noticed how rare the moments are of genuine generosity without selfish motives and how rare true consideration for other people is. When we begin to understand the difference between kusala and akusala, not in a theoretical way, but in daily ife, we appreciate more the value of right understanding of nåma and rúpa. Right understanding of visible object or of seeing which occurs now, of all realities that appear now, leads to the end of defilements. The Buddha taught the development of right understanding for fortyfive years, out of compassion, he taught for our welfare and happiness. The words we use to honour the Buddha: vijjå-carana-sampanno, can become more meaningful when we begin to understand what these qualities are. ****** Nina. #92949 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Series Survey Quote nilovg Dear friends, Q. : What is the difference between the practice which is natural and the practice which is unnatural? S. : At this moment you are sitting in a natural way and you may be aware of realities which appear, such as softness or hardness, presenting themselves through the bodysense, or visible object appearing through the eyesense. All these dhammas appear naturally. However, someone’s practice is unnatural if he believes, while he develops satipatthåna, that he should sit crosslegged, in the lotus position, and that he should concentrate on specific realities. There is desire when a person selects realities which have not arisen yet as objects of awareness. He neglects to be aware of realities which appear already, such as seeing, hearing, visible object, sound, odour, flavour, cold, heat, softness or hardness. Even if there is only a slight amount of wrong understanding, it conditions clinging and this hides the truth. In that case paññå cannot arise and know the dhammas appearing at that moment. People who develop satipatthåna should know precisely the difference between the moment of forgetfulness, when there is no sati, and the moment when there is sati. Otherwise satipatthåna cannot be developed. If one is usually forgetful one is bound to be forgetful again. Someone may wish to select an object in order to concentrate on it, but this is not the way to develop satipatthåna. We should have right understanding of the moment when there is forgetfulness, no sati, that is, when we do not know the characteristics of realities appearing in daily life, such as seeing or hearing. When there is sati, one can consider, study and understand the dhammas appearing through the six doors. When someone selects a particular object in order to focus on it, he will not know that sati is non- self. When there is sati it can be aware of realities which naturally appear. When odour appears there can be awareness of odour which presents itself through the nose. It can be known as only a type of reality which arises, which appears and then disappears. Or the nåma which experiences odour can be understood as only a type of reality which presents itself. After it has experienced odour, it falls away. It is not a being, a person or self. ----------- Nina. #92950 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi TG, Just to clarify: 1) You think that a mirage is real 2) You don't think visible object is real 3) You think that a concept is a mental formation (sankhara) 4) You think that a concept is a nama 5) You think that concepts and mirages are conditioned and impermanent 6) You don't think namas such as seeing and hearing are real 7) You don't think there are dhammas, realities which can be experienced at all Qus: 1) Do you conclude that mirages and concepts are the realities, the sankhara namas that are impermanent and that seeing, hearing, visible object, sound, lobha, dosa, moha and so on are nothing, just 'void', without reality - mere conditions only? Is this what you understand the teachings to be saying? --- On Fri, 21/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >TG: I would say, I mirage certainly is real, it just isn't what it appears to be. >A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama. A concept actually appears and it actually disappears based on conditions. Just like a mirage. Metta, Sarah ======= #92951 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:50 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Jon), Sorry I have taken so long to respond. Busy at work and have a cold. Here are my comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > -------- > N: I looked again at the Sutta about the All, in Ven. Bodhi's > translation, p. 1140. He makes a note, quoting the Co (p. 1400): the > 12 sense bases (aayatanas) are meant here: the five sense- cognitions > and the five senses, mindbase, including all cittas, and dhammaayatana. > The latter includes cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbaana, but this is > not mentioned here. James: Okay. > The all has to be abandoned. How? In fulling understanding it. Only > one nama or rupa can be understood at a time, thus not all of them at > one moment. James: You seem to be confusing satipatthana with "The All" that the Buddha taught. Satipatthana, mindfulness, is one factor of the noble eigtfold path which leads to nibbana. It involves viewing the four foundations of mindfulness in and of themselves. This has nothing whatsoever to do with with existence of people or objects. "The All" should not be abandoned in reference to the world, or the Buddha would not have taught it and stated that anything else is "beyond reach". You seem to be saying that because satipatthana requires the viewing of one rupa, or one nama, as it arises and ceases, then one nama and one rupa is all that exists in samsara. Nina, this is a very radical form of phenomenalism which the Buddha didn't teach. Metta, James #92952 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, I liked the following: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, sprlrt wrote: A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door processes, and thinking, like seeing and the other 4 sense door processes, are nama, the dhammas that experience an object, which are rupa in the case of the 5 sense door, rupa is real (i.e. it actually exists), like nama, that which experience an object, and are real because they arise and fall (one of the meaning of sankhara). Concepts are not immortal, they're simply not real (i.e. they don't actually exist) because they are not nama (that which experience an object) nor rupa (the objects of 5 sense door processes), concepts do not arise and fall and are not sankhara, and dhamma are all sankhara plus Nibbana only. There just isn't much room for concepts in the Dhamma. ..... S: Nicely expressed, especially the last line: "There just isn't much room for concepts in the Dhamma." If we wish to study concepts, there are many places other than the Dhamma to do so. Metta, Sarah ========= #92953 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Serious questions regarding ParaNibbana & Arhatship sarahprocter... Dear Alex, You raised some good points. I read all your questions below and in the rest of your message. I think that the closer we get to understanding the Four Noble Truths, all the questions get closer and closer to being answered. So firstly, what is the meaning of Dukkha, the noble truth of Dukkha? What dhammas are dukkha? In short, the 5 khandhas are dukkha, right? --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Alex wrote: >As I understand it, ParaNibbana is termination of 5 khandas without any reoccurance. This has some issues. >If there is really no Arahant (or worldlings) even in Samsara then it means that: >a) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Samsara? >b) In ultimate truth there isn't any one who experiences Nibbana? .... S: Exactly, just dhammas (i.e. namas) that experience objects. The dhammas which experience Nibbana are the enlightenment factors accompanying the lokuttara cittas. ..... >c) Arahant's 5 khandas (including citta & cetasikas) themselves do not experience paraNibbana since they have to cease first, for ParaNibbana to occure. ..... S: As you said, parinibbana is the cessation of the khandhas. Cessation is a meaning of nibbana. Once the khandhas have ceased to arise, there is no more experiencing of anything. ..... > d) ParaNibbana cannot be an "object" of cognition because it IS devoid of ALL cognition. Just as sound cannot be an object of eye, absence of consciosness cannot be an object of any internal sense base. .... S: Yes, the cessation of the khandhas cannot be experienced by definition. The arahat knows there are no more conditions for the further arising of cittas at the end of the last life. Good questions. Metta, Sarah ========== #92954 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "This just describes what attention is doing. It does not explain 'why' it is doing it...Again what we have here is a general description of what attention is doing. But no indication whatsoever as to 'why' it is doing it. No indication whatsoever as to 'why' attention pays attention to some objects and not others. Why it functions as it does is actually a very essential aspect of attention if you are going to analytically deal with it. For whatever reason, there seems to be no attempt to do so here...so a valuable aspect of conditional relations is missing. The 'driving force' is not 'intention's own force,' it is the force of the conditions that are supporting it and bound up with it." Scott: (I'll assume that, in the above, you meant 'attention's own force' and not 'intentions own force.') The reason the view is untenable is because it is founded on a denial of the ultimate reality of states (dhammaa). The view does not accept that realities exist and have each specific characteristic and function. The reason this essential difference between the view and the Dhamma is relevant when considering conditionality is that it is states which serve as conditioning states for other states - either in their production, support, or maintenance; it is states which serve as conditioned states - either through having arisen and having persistence due to the assistance of the conditioning states; it is the states themselves - their varied characteristics and functions - which themselves are the conditioning forces. It is the manner in which these states function which is the force. All of this depends on the central, primary existence of paramattha dhammaa. From a Dhamma perspective, as previously cited in Atthasaalinii, 'attention' (manasikaara): "is a mode of work, working in the mind (kiriyaa kaaro, manasmi.m kaaro ''manasikaaro). It makes mind, so to speak, different from the previous mind...(a) that which regulates the object is called attention because it makes [the object] in the mind. It has the characteristic of driving associated states towards the object, the function of joining associated states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is included in the aggregate of mental coefficients and should be regarded as the charioteer of associated states because it regulates the object." Scott: I fail to see that 'why' attention does what it is doing is relevant. Attention (manasikaara) is only what it does while it is present. 'How' it functions seems relevant; 'how' its function assists (or is condition for) related elements seems relevant; 'that' it has characteristic and function seems relevant; 'what' it's function is seems relevant. 'Why' it functions seems an odd consideration. The view does note: '...it is the force of the conditions that are supporting it and bound up with it.' This, as I understand it, comes close to the way in which Pa.t.thaana deals with conditioning forces, as noted above. But, given the view's insistence that no paramattha dhamma can exist, such a statement must mean something else entirely. There is no way that a non-existent can serve as 'force.' The view persistently misunderstands 'voidness.' Citta is the leader when it comes to cognizing any ojbect. Citta serves as conascent condition for cetasika (and vice-versa). Manasikaara is only what its characteristic and function are in the moment of its arising, altering while standing, and falling away. Manasikaara is only one of several cetasikaa having specific characteristics and performing specific functions while present along with citta and in relation to a particular object. As noted above, the characteristic of manasikaara, in relation to an object, is of 'driving associated states towards the object.' The function of manisikaara, in relation to an object, is of 'joining associated states to the object.' Its manifestation is of 'facing the object.' Manisikaara is only that particular characteristic, only that particular function, and only that particular manifestation. Manasikaara does not think about the object, and does not choose an object. It simply is limited to its specific characteristic, function, and manifestation. As I understand it, it is the object which serves as conditioning state in relation to citta and cetasika, which are conditioned states in relation to it (object condition, prenascent object condition. The characteristic, function, and manifestation of the object would be the conditioning forces which would assist in the arising and presence of consciousness. Attention does not 'choose' and object. Attention (manasikaara) only 'driv[es] associated states towards the object;' it only 'join[es] associated states to the object;' and it only 'fac[es] the object.' Manasikaara doesn't 'choose' the object since the object has presence before it arises, and conditions its arising conascent with citta. Sincerely, Scott. #92955 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga, the end nilovg Hi Larry, Op 25-nov-2008, om 5:10 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > For me, I know, this is something that will take a very long time to > truly understand, but these two years of study has made a big > difference, and I thank you again. --------- N: Thank you for your kind post. Also for me, for everybody, it takes long to understand the D.O., finding a footing in the depths. I think we frequently have to return to this subject. It was good working so smoothly together with you, and had you not posted on and on I may not have come to it to study the text and Tiika week after week. Also for myself this study has helped me. I shall miss it now, but it became rather heavy together with the Sangiitisutta project. -------- Nina. #92956 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:59 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Object condition nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 24-nov-2008, om 21:58 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > So old moments of understanding can condition a moment of > understanding in the future by the way of aramanapaccaya? > So if there is understanding now, can it depends on those past? > > it looks like some kind of accumulations. -------- N: You are right. This condition is not object-condition, it is because of former understanding that is accumulated that understanding today can arise. If you understand a little today, it will condition a little more understanding tomorrow and the following days. It goes very slowly, but that does not matter. Whatever you learn and understand is never lost. Accumulations is included in natural dependent condition, pakatupanissaya paccaya. ------ Nina. #92957 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott Scott writes: it is the states themselves - their varied characteristics and functions - which themselves are the conditioning forces. It is the manner in which these states function which is the force. All of this depends on the central, primary existence of paramattha dhammaa. .............................................................. TG: Quite frankly, this is nothing other than "self view" applied to "dhammas." Its so obvious it reeks. When you get down to the nitty gritty, all you guys are doing is transferring 'self view' onto "dhammas"...that you are (unwittingly) seeing as "entities" with their own characteristics. Which is just another way of "clinging" to self view. Detachment cannot come about by this method. TG OUT #92958 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: Quite frankly, this is nothing other than 'self view' applied to 'dhammas'..." Scott: This was a disappointing reply. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this clearly non-Abhidhamma, non-commentarial view should face intellectual criticism on such a List as this. I'd very much appreciate it if you could compose a small essay outlining the view in its entirety. You ought to be up to it and you suggest that the view has been evolving over years of study. I enjoy study by contrast, and the view is certainly divergent - at least in this context. Are you up to the challenge? Sincerely, Scott. #92959 From: "colette" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta ksheri3 Hi Alberto (and Sarah), Sarah, aren't you so forgiving and just a little too simplistic. Let me take a few lines from Alberto, here, and show you the land mines you happened to pass over. > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, colette: sounds good. --------------------- > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door processes, and > thinking, colette: hmmm, that's a big chunck to stick on a single fork. Mouth size is gonna have to increase. Lets consider the FACTS of EXTERNAL vs. INTERNAL. Is the concept actually an object IF the thinking was done EXTERNALLY to your mind? In other words, if the thoughts were in another mind and merely presented to you then you are being spoon fed, a prisoner being forced to eat, and we can ask the Irish about Bobby Sands and his aversion to eating. Is the process your process or is it the process of an External mind? Are you, then, making what is external and INTERNAL Truth/REality based on the acceptance and hypnotism of the EXTERNAL Truth/Reality? ---------------------------- > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door processes, and > thinking, like seeing and the other 4 sense door processes, are nama, > the dhammas that experience an object, which are rupa in the case of > the 5 swense door, rupa is real (i.e. it actually exists), like nama, > that which experience an object, and are real because they arise and > fall (one of the meaning of sankhara). colette: now I've put it all together here, and realize that I can't possibly stick that in my mouth since GLUTTONY is clearly on the fork. This is WAAAAAY OVER EXTENSION here. <....> Do not take out of one head and place in another head unless you are prepared for CASTLE FRANKENSTEIN to be advanced upon. Since I'm clearly plassing you at the operating table upon the frankenstein monster, then that would mean that the public would then be advancing upon your position. So I recomend hesitation, very slow movements since "booby" is known to be in the area and booby seems to always be equipped with TRAPS. <...> I'm havin' a lot of fun with ya Sarah, and well, sorry Alberto but you got caught up in the joke as the bridge that the message had to pass through to get to Sarah/Jon and the splendid audience I have here for this standup comedy routine. As I said, just a few lines taken from Alberto to use. toodles, colette #92960 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: Winning Vision! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Four Grades of Vision! The Blessed Buddha once said: In this some recluse or priest by means of alert energetic effort and enthusiasm, through proper rational attention & concentrated focus reaches absorption on this sole thought: In this foul body of disgusting things enclosed by skin, there are head & body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, mesentery, intestines, stomach, excrement, bile, lymph, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, tallow, spittle, snot, urine & joint-fluid... This is the first attainment of Vision... Empty Frame: Having done this and gone beyond it, he regards & perceives any body, own or others, only as a chained frame of bones covered with flesh, vessels, fat & skin. This is the second attainment of Vision... Discrete Moments: Having done this & gone further, he comes to understand & directly experience this continuous sequence of discrete conscious moments established & manifesting both in this world and the other worlds. This is the third attainment of Vision... Continuous yet not Established: Finally, having done this & gone even further than beyond that, he comes to understand & directly experience this unbroken stream of consciousness neither established nor manifesting in this or any other world... This is the fourth attainment of Vision... <...> Source: The Exhaustive Speeches by the Buddha. Digha Nikaya III 105-5 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25103 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/index.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Winning Vision! #92961 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 11/25/2008 10:30:39 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, Upasaka writes: Scott: I fail to see that 'why' attention does what it is doing is relevant. ....................................................... TG: This statement really tells the whole story. By failing to understand conditionality (causes) or even see why it is relevant ... is holding you back from understanding the principles of conditionality and why you cannot digest a Sutta that calls the Aggregates -- empty, hollow, insubstantial, coreless, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, etc. When confronted with such a Sutta, rather than trying to understand the Sutta, you diss it. Oh well. Commentaries rule! Actually, I'd be surprised if your colleagues would even agree with this statement of yours. Why attention does what it does pertains to its cause and should certainly be a relevant issue for Abhidhamma. You and I may not agree as to the "root cause," but certainly the cause should be an issue. ....................................................... Attention (manasikaara) is only what it does while it is present. 'How' it functions seems relevant; 'how' its function assists (or is condition for) related elements seems relevant; 'that' it has characteristic and function seems relevant; 'what' it's function is seems relevant. 'Why' it functions seems an odd consideration. ................................................................ TG: Without understanding what is causing attention, what is driving it to do what it does; any analysis of "attention" is just a grasping at a false facade. But, that way you can play with your "ultimate reality theory" without threat of it collapsing like a house of cards. ..................................................................... The view does note: '...it is the force of the conditions that are supporting it and bound up with it.' This, as I understand it, comes close to the way in which Pa.t.thaana deals with conditioning forces, as noted above. But, given the view's insistence that no paramattha dhamma can exist, such a statement must mean something else entirely. There is no way that a non-existent can serve as 'force.' The view persistently misunderstands 'voidness.' ............................................................. TG: LOL How many times have I got to tell you I am not talking about "non-existence"? LOL The BUDDHA said the aggregates were "like a mirage," like a conjurer's trick," "coreless," etc. When did he ever say they were "ultimate realities" ... hand to my ear... When and where??? Commentary inventions. You can have em. ....................................................................... Citta is the leader when it comes to cognizing any ojbect. ................................................................... TG: WRONG! Nothing leads. Everything is a resultant. The idea of something leading is mere conventional thinking. ..................................................................... Citta serves as conascent condition for cetasika (and vice-versa). Manasikaara is only what its characteristic and function are in the moment of its arising, altering while standing, and falling away. Manasikaara is only one of several cetasikaa having specific characteristics and performing specific functions while present along with citta and in relation to a particular object. .................................................................. TG: These terms are just that --- TERMS. These are just conceptual indicators of what is happening. They aren't "exactly" what is happening. For folks who claim that concepts aren't real, you sure do grab onto them like crazy! Like a dog grabbing a bone that won't let go. LOL ........................................................................ As noted above, the characteristic of manasikaara, in relation to an object, is of 'driving associated states towards the object.' ............................................................... The function of manisikaara, in relation to an object, is of 'joining associated states to the object.' Its manifestation is of 'facing the object.' Manisikaara is only that particular characteristic, only that particular function, and only that particular manifestation. Manasikaara does not think about the object, and does not choose an object. It simply is limited to its specific characteristic, function, and manifestation. As I understand it, it is the object which serves as conditioning state in relation to citta and cetasika, which are conditioned states in relation to it (object condition, prenascent object condition. The characteristic, function, and manifestation of the object would be the conditioning forces which would assist in the arising and presence of consciousness. .................................................................. TG: This seems to be the opposite of what you said above. Here you do seem to be discussing (per text) the "why" as to the arising of attention...in a round about way. .................................................................... Attention does not 'choose' and object. ................................................................ TG: Attention is compelled (forced by conditions) toward an object. Certainly it does not choose it. .................................................................... Attention (manasikaara) only 'driv[es] associated states towards the object;' it only 'join[es] associated states to the object;' and it only 'fac[es] the object.' Manasikaara doesn't 'choose' the object since the object has presence before it arises, and conditions its arising conascent with citta. ..................................................................... TG: Basically, a rote commentarial discussion of what attention does is not necessary. I've read about it several times. I don't have any objection with it per se, its just an incomplete picture of what is happening. That's partly because there is only so much you can do with WORDS. And, for some people, they succumb to thinking the Abhidhammic terms indicate ultimate realities which is where the real fault of Abhidhamma lies. Other than that, and its related faulty "own characteristic theme," it is mostly good and useful. I just wear a clothes pin on my nose when I'm reading parts of it and I'm fine with it. ;-) Its a commentary. Its a commentary. Its a commentary. LOL TG OUT #92962 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 314 and Tiika, part 2. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Larry & Connie, Thank you for all your hard work and helpful reminders throughout. --- On Mon, 24/11/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > The final verse of this section of the Vis. is an > exhortation to the > development of sati sampaja~n~na: 'Let a wise man > (pa.n.dito) with > mindfulness, so practise...' . The text literally > states: 'always > mindful, sadaa sato'. <...> > As we read in the subco. to the mahaanidaanasutta as to the > first two > stages of tender insight, these the mere first > interpretation of phenomena, but by the recurrent arising > of > knowledge about them called “ repeated > understanding”.> > This reminds us to persevere with the development of > understanding of > all dhammas appearing in our daily life. There is nothing > other than > that which more needs to be done. > ******* ..... S: Yes, whatever we read is "an exhortation to the development of sati sampaja~n~na", a reminder to develop more and more understanding of the dhammas appearing now. Here's a reminder of K. Sujin's which I heard today and liked: "We have to come closer, closer, closer to each reality because it arises and falls away so rapidly. If we're not precise, (or [rather,]panna is not precise), there cannot be the realisation of any characteristic of reality." Anumodana, Metta, Sarah ======== #92963 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi TG, I do not like to interrupt the discussion between you and Scott, but what Sarah wrote made me think of you. See below. Op 26-nov-2008, om 6:00 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > And, for some > people, they succumb to thinking the Abhidhammic terms indicate > ultimate > realities which is where the real fault of Abhidhamma lies. Other > than that, and its > related faulty "own characteristic theme," it is mostly good and > useful. --------- N: As I said before, the connection of Abhidhamma with daily life seems to be an obstacle for you. I wonder, can anything be done about that? When I think of you I find this rather worrysome. With all your interest you could perhaps learn to see that Abhidhamma, just as the other parts of the Tipi.taka, does deal with your life now. The Abhidhammic terms should not stay 'in the book', they can come to life. Citta: it is arising and falling away now, day after day. So long as you are in this dangerous cycle. So long as there is ignorance. Ignorance of what? Of realities that appear now. Don't we think that I see, I hear? It is citta, citta that cognizes visible object, sound. Citta that is attached, not you. Without citta, nothing in this world could appear. Sarah cited : Without the Tipi.taka, Abhidhamma included, we would only have a vague knowledge of all phenomena of our life. But we should not stumble over words, like sabhaava. It just points to a characteristic, every nama or rupa has a characteristic. Verify this in your life, so that you can make the connection of Abhidhamma with daily life. But do continue your debate with Scott, I am going away for a few days. Nina. #92964 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:47 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- On Sun, 23/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: >The Buddha knew what was going on in all ways. His wisdom didn't consist of censorship and a blanking out. The human ideal is a Buddha, not an amoeba or embryo or any other life form that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. ..... S: I agree with you that wisdom isn't "a blanking out". However, bhikkhus do follow the rule of "downcast eyes": "I shall go with downcast eyes among the houses [=into a village]; [this is] a training to be done" and: "I shall sit with downcast eyes among the houses [=in a village]; [this is] a training to be done." (Under "Sekhiyaa",Rules of Training, in the Patimokkha). Further in the Vinaya on this (Suttavibhanga, Part 3, I.B. Horner's translation), we read about how a group of six bhikkhus were criticised for behaving "just like householders who enjoy the pleasures of the senses" in the way they wore their robes, looked around, laughed out loud, swayed their bodies, swayed their arms, sat lolling around and so on. With bhikkhus were rebuked in all regards and the various rules were laid down including the one above. Further: " 'With the eyes cast down will I go (sit down) amidst the houses,' is a training to be observed.' "One should go (sit down) amidst the houses with the eyes cast down looking only a plough's (distance ahead). Whoever out of disrespect, looking about here and there, goes (sits down) amidst the houses, there is an offence of wrong-doing. "There is no offence if it is unintentional, if he is not thinking, if he does not know, if he is ill, if there are accidents*, if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer." S: And of course, the Buddha did set the example. From Sutta Nipata, Pabbajjaa Sutta, Saddhatissa transl: "And as he, the Buddha, the one full of noble characteristics, walked about in search of food he came in time to Raajagaha, in Magadha. "The king, Bimbisaara, stood in his palace and, seeing the one possessing the noble characteristics, called out to his followers: " 'Look carefully, friends, he is handsome, shapely and of beautiful complexion. His gait is pleasing with his eyes cast at only a little distance; with downcast eyes he is mindful and he does not seem to be from a low family.. Send out the palace messengers to find out where he's going.' <....> " I have seen the miseries of pleasure. I have seen the security involved in renouncing them; "So now I will go, I will go into the struggle, This is to my mind delight; This is where my mind finds bliss." ***** Metta, Sarah * No offence for a bhikkhu in looking around actively if there is an accident, such as a train crash with a car after a tsunami as discussed with another friend before. ========== #92965 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, I think the point of seeing when the eyes are closed is that we think at such times that we don't see anything, because we think we don't see the computer, the sky, the drapes and all the objects we're used to thinking are seen. When we close our eyes, clearly there is no seeing of the computer, the sky and the drapes, there is just thinking of one object or other. Actually, it's the same when the eyes are open, what we think is seen is generally only thinking about one object or other, different kinds of shapes and forms. This, of course, is not visible object, but various concepts which are thought about after brief moments of seeing visible object. Furthermore, when we pay particular attention to various objects, I think we are used to thinking that we see more objects or see them more precisely and clearly. In truth, there's just more thinking about the various shapes and forms on account of the visible objects which have been seen, usually with attachment and ignorance. So, as I understand, the point about closing the eyes is to help us understand that visible object is not the shape and form, is not the computer, sky or drapes. These are merely the objects of thinking, the pannatti (concepts). The visible object is just that which is seen, either when light is present (with eyes open) or when light is not present (with eyes closed), as you say. When the suttas refer to not being led astray by the nimitta anubyanjanna (signs and details), it is the tendency to proliferate, to think with attachment about what is seen (heard and so on), that is being referred to. Usually, there is no awareness or understanding that it only visible object is seen regardless of where one looks, regardless of whether ones eyes are open, whether one has good or poor eyesight. I hope this may clarify a little. It's helpful for me to consider further too. Metta, Sarah --- On Mon, 24/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: Op 23-nov-2008, om 14:44 heeft upasaka@aol. com het volgende geschreven: >> That last sentence of yours, to be officiously precise, is incorrect - > even though it matches one made by Khun Sujin (LOL!). If you close > your eyes, you will observe that you can still see. ------ >N: Yes, we did discuss this with her. It is different from when you are completely blind. But when the eyes are open, the seeing of colour is the condition for perceiving different things, and this is not so when the eyes are closed. Thus, generally speaking, we can refer to: when your eyes are closed, no seeing. There is not the ordinary seeing like just now. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: Sorry, Nina, that's incorrect. She is in error. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- #92966 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. nilovg Hi James, Op 25-nov-2008, om 9:50 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > The all has to be abandoned. How? In fulling understanding it. > Only > > one nama or rupa can be understood at a time, thus not all of them > at > > one moment. > > James: You seem to be confusing satipatthana with "The All" that the > Buddha taught. Satipatthana, mindfulness, is one factor of the > noble eigtfold path which leads to nibbana. It involves viewing the > four foundations of mindfulness in and of themselves. This has > nothing whatsoever to do with with existence of people or > objects. ------- N: We learn that people are citta, cetasika and rupa that do not stay for a moment. -------- > J: "The All" should not be abandoned in reference to the > world, or the Buddha would not have taught it and stated that > anything else is "beyond reach". -------- N: The all: this includes as mentioned, 12 sense bases (aayatanas) are meant here: the five sense-cognitions and the five senses, mindbase, including all cittas, and dhammaayatana. They appear now and can be objects of sati of satipatthana. The Applications of mindfulness that are kaaya, vedanaa, citta and dhamma include actually all nama and rupa appearing now. Kaaya: all rupas, appearing time and again. Feeling too, it arises all the time. Citta, yes, citta now that sees, reads, thinks. Dhammas: all are dhammas but we do not see them yet as mere dhamma elements. The abandoning of the all: this begins by abandoning the wrong view of self, taking all objects for mine of self. --------- > > J: You seem to be saying that because satipatthana requires the > viewing > of one rupa, or one nama, as it arises and ceases, then one nama and > one rupa is all that exists in samsara. Nina, this is a very > radical form of phenomenalism which the Buddha didn't teach. ------ N: I mean: one reality at a time is the object of mindfulness and right understanding, so that pa~n~naa can grow and eradicate defilements. I did not say: that is all that exists in samsara. This sutta and the following suttas deal with the objects right understanding should be developed of. ---------- Nina. #92967 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" sarahprocter... Dear Scott (TG & all), Thanks for your helpful discussion of AN 10s, 2, Cetanaakaraniiya Sutta which I was inspired to read! It starts with (PTS transl): " 'Monks, for one who is virtuous, in full possession of virtue, there is no need for the purposeful thought [na cetanaaya kara.niiya.m]: May freedom from remorse arise in me. This, monks, is in accordance with nature [dhammataa esaa] - that for one who is virtuous, in full possession of virtue, freedom from remorse arises........... "Monks, for one who feels revulsion and fading interest there is no need for the thought: I realize release by knowing and seeing. It follows naturally that he who feels revulsion and fading interest realizes release by knowing and seeing........" --- On Fri, 21/11/08, Scott wrote: From: Scott >Cetanaakaraniiyasut ta.m. >"Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection.. ." >Iti kho bhikkhave dhammaavadhamme abhisandenti, dhammaavadhamme paripuurenti apaaraapaara. m gamanaayaati. .... [S: "apaaraapaara.m gamanaayaati" BB: "from the near shore to the far shore" "AA: 'From the near shore' of the three realms of becoming to the 'far shore', Nibbaana."] >Scott: Concerning 'dhammaavadhamme, ' the sense of the word 'dhamma' seems to be that of (PTS PED): <...> >Scott: This confirms the sense that we are discussing conditionality - 'dhammavadhamme; ' with the presence of one state, even so or certainly, this will serve as condition in some fashion for another state; ..... S: Yes. And then there is the 'drenching', 'steeping' or 'suffusing' which results from wisdom and all that is noble without anyone having to have special intentions or thoughts (with an idea of Self that can do such). The PTS transl. has a footnote which refers to some similar wording for 'abhisandenti.....paripuurenti" which you were examining in D. i. 73. This is the Saamma~n~naphala Sutta, 77 in the section on the Jhanas: "226. ‘‘So vivicceva kaamehi, vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakka.m savicaara.m vivekaja.m piitisukha.m pa.thama.m jhaana.m upasampajja viharati. So imameva kaaya.m vivekajena piitisukhena ***abhisandeti parisandeti paripuureti parippharati***, naassa ki~nci sabbaavato kaayassa vivekajena piitisukhena apphu.ta.m hoti." BB transl: "Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters and dwells in the first jhaana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought and filled with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion. ***He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body which is not suffused by this rapture and happiness." "Cy. 'He drenches': he moistens; he extends rapture and happiness everywhere. 'Steeps': he applies all around. 'Saturates': he fills as if filling a bellows with air. 'Suffuses': he pervades all around. 'His body': the material body composed of the four elements." Anyway, just a little diversion as you were exploring the Pali terms and I thought you might be interested... Metta, Sarah ===== #92968 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, --- On Fri, 21/11/08, sprlrt wrote: A: >I think that, in Dhamma terms, philosophy employ concepts of concepts (avijjamana pannati) to explain other concepts/pannati, while the Dhamma employ concepts of non-concepts/ dhammas (vijjamana pannati) to explain the dhammas, which are real and not concepts/pannati .... S: A good observation. As you say, in the Dhamma, we're interested in studying dhammas which are real. We have to use concepts for this. If we just use concepts to study other concepts, there's no way out. Metta, Sarah ===== #92969 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Just chipping in while Alberto refuels: --- On Sat, 22/11/08, Alex wrote: >> TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama > >> Alberto: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankhara ) with > thoughts (concepts/pannati) , thinking is what experiences thoughts, > thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate > entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. .... >Alex: Buddha has said that ALL sankharas are impermament, ALL Dhammas are not self. .... S: Yes, but ALL sankharas are ALL khandhas.....Remember that the First Noble Truth refers to the 5 khandhas, the dhammas which are conditioned and impermanent. Concepts are not included. Sankhara khandha refers to the 50 cetasikas other than vedana and sanna. ..... Alex: >Those who believe that will reject the notion of concepts being permanent, self, etc etc. .... S: Thos who believe that concepts have the same characteristics as the khandhas or dhatus (elements), do not appreciate that concepts are not real and cannot be penetrated or understood in the way that namas and rupas can. Satipatthana and vipassana refer to insight into namas and rupas only. .... Alex: >Some almost sound like certain "Buddhist" attavadins who posit a Self that is beyond all Dhamma, thus not being covered by "Sabbe Dhamma anatta". .... S: Some almost sound like philosophers or later schools of "Buddhists" who mistakenly think the end of samsara can be found through knowing concepts. Furthermore, they cling to the idea that there is a Person who can do such knowing:-). Back to you and Alberto... Metta, Sarah ====== #92970 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:17 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Series Survey Quote. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/26/2008 2:47:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, --- On Sun, 23/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: >The Buddha knew what was going on in all ways. His wisdom didn't consist of censorship and a blanking out. The human ideal is a Buddha, not an amoeba or embryo or any other life form that cannot observe beyond bare sensation. Heightened wisdom isn't synonymous loss of capacity. ..... S: I agree with you that wisdom isn't "a blanking out". However, bhikkhus do follow the rule of "downcast eyes": "I shall go with downcast eyes among the houses [=into a village]; [this is] a training to be done" and: "I shall sit with downcast eyes among the houses [=in a village]; [this is] a training to be done." (Under "Sekhiyaa",Rules of Training, in the Patimokkha). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I understand that. Bhikkhus are renunciants. They absent themselves from many things that entice the senses, most especially sexuality. That last makes them quite vulnerable to enticement - to arousal of sexual feelings. When they go out among the laity, the temptations loom large, larger than they would for lay persons, and to such an extent that it is wise for them to literally turn away. This applies, in wider contexts, to lay persons as well. For anyone who is extremely vulnerable in a particular area, for example sex, food, alcohol, betting - any area of special compulsion for them and vulnerability to them, it is best to turn away. But for one in whom there is no extreme compulsion in an area, a practice of ongoing mindfulness is adequate and preferable. For example, for a man who doesn't "go wild" just by seeing a pretty woman, there is no need to "see only teeth." Far better it is for him to see whatever arises, including his own namas, observing and nipping-in-the-bud any papa~nca when it arises or even is just about to arise. A calm guarding of the senses is best except in special cases. The Buddha recommended gritting the teeth in renunciation only as a last resort. --------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #92971 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/26/2008 3:25:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, I think the point of seeing when the eyes are closed is that we think at such times that we don't see anything, because we think we don't see the computer, the sky, the drapes and all the objects we're used to thinking are seen. ------------------------------------------- Howard: But I DO think we see then. There IS seeing, and that is perfectly obvious to me. ------------------------------------------- When we close our eyes, clearly there is no seeing of the computer, the sky and the drapes, there is just thinking of one object or other. Actually, it's the same when the eyes are open, what we think is seen is generally only thinking about one object or other, different kinds of shapes and forms. This, of course, is not visible object, but various concepts which are thought about after brief moments of seeing visible object. -------------------------------------------- Howard: When eyes are closed, the visible object is different in kind from when they are open, far simpler in particular, and sufficiently different that we have no names for what thinking might "carve out" as conventional objects "seen". But there is actual (literal) seeing none the less, and that was my sole point. ------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, when we pay particular attention to various objects, I think we are used to thinking that we see more objects or see them more precisely and clearly. In truth, there's just more thinking about the various shapes and forms on account of the visible objects which have been seen, usually with attachment and ignorance. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Quite so. What is seen is the mere visible object, whether simple or complex. It is just what appears to sight. --------------------------------------------- So, as I understand, the point about closing the eyes is to help us understand that visible object is not the shape and form, is not the computer, sky or drapes. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Then that point should be made more clearly, not in a way that suggests that open eyes are required for seeing. -------------------------------------------- These are merely the objects of thinking, the pannatti (concepts). The visible object is just that which is seen, either when light is present (with eyes open) or when light is not present (with eyes closed), as you say. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Then we are in agreement on that point. I would add another, not directly related point, though: There IS structure to a visible object that is subsequently conceptualized. The sa~n~nic processing and thinking that you allude to is a mental discovery process, and is not fully delusive. Delusion enters in when we concoct separate entities instead of just noting interrelationship. --------------------------------------------- When the suttas refer to not being led astray by the nimitta anubyanjanna (signs and details), it is the tendency to proliferate, to think with attachment about what is seen (heard and so on), that is being referred to. --------------------------------------------- Howard: YES! I quite agree. ------------------------------------------- Usually, there is no awareness or understanding that it only visible object is seen regardless of where one looks, regardless of whether ones eyes are open, whether one has good or poor eyesight. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I suppose that is true. That hasn't been the case for me for a long time, and I tend to forget that not everyone understands things exactly in the way I presently do. ------------------------------------------ I hope this may clarify a little. It's helpful for me to consider further too. ----------------------------------------- Howard: :-) ---------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #92972 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:59 am Subject: Sri Lanka REvisited, Ch 8, no 2 nilovg Dear friends, Besides the sacred places in Anurådhapura we also visited other memorable places outside this city. We went to Mahintale, the place where the arahat Mahinda, who had come from India, met the Singhalese King Devanampiya Tissa (250 B.C.) and preached to him the “Lesser Discourse on the Elephant’s Footprint” (Middle Length Sayings I, no 27). The King presented Mahinda with the Royal Park in Anurådhapura and this place became the Mahå-vihåra, the center of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Buddhaghosa, the autor of the “Visuddhimagga” and most of the Commentaries to the Tipitaka, resided in the Mahå-vihåra. We visited the Thuparama, the oldest stupa in Sri Lanka, where the relic of the Buddha’s right collarbone had been enshrined. Near the Thuparama is the cremation place of bhikkhuní Sangamitta, Mahinda’s sister, who brought a sapling of the Bodhi-tree to Sri Lanka. After her arrival the order of bhikkhunís was founded in Sri Lanka. We payed respect at the Ruvanvelisaya, the great stupa which was constructed during the reign of King Dutthagåmaùí (150 B.C.), where relics of the Buddha had been enshrined. While we walked around the stupa we discussed satipatthåna. When the rain poured down in the afternoon we sat in a small temple near the stupa for Dhamma discussions. We payed respect at the Bodhi-tree several times and we noticed that the new sprout we saw two years ago was still growing bigger. To us this was a sign that the teachings are still being preserved in Sri Lanka. One morning the group of foreign monks was going for a long walk from the Abbhayagiri Vihåra to the Thuparama. Jonothan, the Australian layman who looked after the monks during this journey and who had organised the walk, two Thai friends and I came along as well. The Abbhayagiri, our starting point, was built about 89 B.C. This monastery dissented from the monks of the Mahåvihåra. Since in all old stupas relics have been enshrined we payed respect there, by walking around the stupa three times while reciting the Påli words which express honour to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. From the Abbhayagiri we walked to a famous old Buddha statue, the Samådhi statue, and from there we went to the “Twin Pond” of Abbhayagiri which had been built for the use of the monks. We then proceeded to “Naka Vihåra”, now an old ruin, where once a fingernail relic of the Buddha had been enshrined. After that we followed the monks along the fields and we saw on our left side in the midst of marshy grounds the “Pathama Cetiya”, the first place where the arahat Mahinda had stayed after his arrival in Mahintale. We ended our walk in Thuparama. -------- Nina. #92973 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:02 am Subject: Series Survey quote. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha explained about dhammas, realities, and people who develop satipaìtthåna can verify them; they can know the characteristics of the dhammas which naturally appear, just as they are. However, the Dhamma is subtle and deep. For example, when a person learns that visible object is the reality appearing through the eyes, he may think that it is not difficult to understand this. But theoretical understanding is not the same as understanding of the characteristic of seeing when he sees. If he does not develop satipatthåna so that paññå becomes keener, he cannot realize the characteristics of nåma and rúpa as they are. When one sees, visible object is experienced through the eyes, but what one sees one takes for people, beings and different things. Then doubt arises and people wonder what visible object is like, what characteristic it has. Visible object is the reality which appears when our eyes are open and there is seeing, not yet thinking about anything. Then the characteristic of visible object can appear naturally, as it is. As paññå develops, one can become familiar with the fact that visible object which appears is not a being, person, self, or anything else. Visible object is only the reality which appears through the eyes, that is its true nature. If people are not inclined to study and investigate the characteristic of visible object, it will be impossible for them to let go of the clinging to the idea they always had of seeing, namely, seeing people, beings or different things. ******* Nina #92974 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Nina, All In a message dated 11/26/2008 12:37:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG, I do not like to interrupt the discussion between you and Scott, but what Sarah wrote made me think of you. See below. Op 26-nov-2008, om 6:00 heeft _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) het volgende geschreven: > And, for some > people, they succumb to thinking the Abhidhammic terms indicate > ultimate > realities which is where the real fault of Abhidhamma lies. Other > than that, and its > related faulty "own characteristic theme," it is mostly good and > useful. --------- N: As I said before, the connection of Abhidhamma with daily life seems to be an obstacle for you. I wonder, can anything be done about that? When I think of you I find this rather worrysome. With all your interest you could perhaps learn to see that Abhidhamma, just as the other parts of the Tipi.taka, does deal with your life now. .............................................................. TG: Goodness gracious Nina. In addition to all the time I spend in reading and posting here, I generally spend hours a day contemplated "what is being experienced now"...i.e., being mindful of present experience and the conditions for such. I just don't think that "what is being experienced now" is "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." LOL That viewpoint is not a template that I am interested in gauging experience by. But I guess I should thank you for your concern. .............................................................. The Abhidhammic terms should not stay 'in the book', they can come to life. Citta: it is arising and falling away now, day after day. So long as you are in this dangerous cycle. So long as there is ignorance. Ignorance of what? Of realities that appear now. ........................................................... TG: This is dreamland. Ignorance is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths and or conditionality principles of impermanence, affliction, and no-self. You want to think that the Buddha's teaching revolves around "realities as they appear now"...but it doesn't. You don't seem to care a bit that the Suttas don't make these "over-the-top" statements that you claim. I find that odd. What you don't realize is...that by viewing "dhammas" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics" you are interjecting self view upon those "dhammas" which amounts to clinging to self view yourself. What you propose that I follow, IMO, is the death nail of any chance for enlightenment and full detachment. Conditions are dynamic and flow on and alter due to "other" conditions. Any "particular" isolated perception of those conditions just perceives what is hollow, empty, coreless, insubstantial, and like a mirage. Its does NOT perceive any "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." This latter is in fact...EXACTLY what is NOT perceived. .................................................................... Don't we think that I see, I hear? It is citta, citta that cognizes visible object, sound. Citta that is attached, not you. .............................................................. Desire, craving, clinging is the attachment. Consciousness just conforms to such or not depending on conditions of attachment or not. Remember the "yoke-tie" !!! ......................................................... Without citta, nothing in this world could appear. ........................................................ TG: That's basically true of all phenomena. Consciousness is not independent...but is dependently structured. So all the structure required for Consciousness is also required for the "world to appear." Consciousness isn't doing the "heavy lifting" by itself. ................................................... Sarah cited : ............................................................ TG: This simply isn't the Buddha's teaching. Its a side track that goes 90 degrees in the wrong direction IMO. It won't reach the goal. ................................................................ Without the Tipi.taka, Abhidhamma included, we would only have a vague knowledge of all phenomena of our life. But we should not stumble over words, like sabhaava. It just points to a characteristic, every nama or rupa has a characteristic. Verify this in your life, so that you can make the connection of Abhidhamma with daily life. ..................................................................... TG: Same comment as above applies here....except here we are 180 degrees off track. ;-) TG OUT #92975 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Where in the suttas are there unambiguous analysis of "concepts" vs "realities"? Thank you for more clarification, but I still believe that ALL things (including concepts) are conditioned, impermanent and not-self. It is sad that Neo_Platonic forms got their way into Buddha Dhamma. As a sutta (sorry, I forgot the number) has said: "It is impossible that anyone with right view would consider anything as permanent/self". #92976 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Serious questions regarding ParaNibbana & Arhatship truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, Thank you for your reply. The follow up question: How can pariNibbana be an object of the mind? I accept that non-greed non-hate non-delusion CAN be an object of the mind. However a full and complete termination of 5 khandas and all consciousness itself cannot be an object of the mind. Consciousness is always of something and Nibbana isn't some *thing*. The Buddha has also said something similiar to this that there cannot be "pure" consciousness and it is always consciousness OF something where paraNibbana isn't some thing to be aware of. Can someone answer that? Thank you all and best wishes, #92977 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on anatta truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Just chipping in while Alberto refuels: > > --- On Sat, 22/11/08, Alex wrote: > >> TG: A concept is most definitely a mental formation and a nama > > > >> Alberto: I think you're mixing up thinking (mental formations/sankhara ) with > > thoughts (concepts/pannati) , thinking is what experiences thoughts, > > thoughts are what is experienced by thinking, they are separate > > entities, a subject-object relationship if I may say so. > .... > >Alex: Buddha has said that ALL sankharas are impermament, ALL Dhammas are not self. > .... > S: Yes, but ALL sankharas are ALL khandhas.....Remember that the First Noble Truth refers to the 5 khandhas, the dhammas which are conditioned and impermanent. Concepts are not included. Sankhara khandha refers to the 50 cetasikas other than vedana and sanna. > ..... Concepts are not found outside of nama & vinnana. Furthermore this is Buddhism and not Platonism. Forms as everything and anything in Samsara are CONDITIONED phenomena that happen due to causes and conditions and can manifest all tilakkhana's. > S: Some almost sound like philosophers or later schools >of "Buddhists" who mistakenly think the end of samsara can be found >through knowing concepts. Furthermore, they cling to the idea that >there is a Person who can do such knowing:-). > > Back to you and Alberto... > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== There IS a person named such and such, it is just that that person is anicca-dukkha-anatta. "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html With best wishes, #92978 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" nilovg Hi TG, Op 26-nov-2008, om 18:37 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > The Abhidhammic terms should not stay 'in the book', they can come to > life. Citta: it is arising and falling away now, > > day after day. So > long as you are in this dangerous cycle. So long as there is > ignorance. Ignorance of what? Of realities that appear now. > > ........................................................... > > > TG: This is dreamland. Ignorance is ignorance of the Four Noble > Truths and > or conditionality principles of impermanence, affliction, and no-self. ------- N: Yes, and what is impermanent, dukkha and not self? What is arising now? Seeing, or attachment to what is seen. The arising and falling away of seeing has to be realised. How? Not confusing seeing with visible object. How? To be aware and directly understand the characteristic of each one of them. Pa~n~naa is very precise. The three characteristics always pertain to the dhamma now that arises because of conditions. I will close off my email, but I can give a few quotes from Vis. Ch XVII. As I said to Larry we often have to return to this chapter. > -------- Vis. 58. According to the Suttanta method 'ignorance' is unknowing about the four instances beginning with suffering. According to the Abhidhamma method it is unknowing about the eight instances [that is to say, the above-mentioned four] together with [the four] beginning with the past; for this is said: 'Herein, what is ignorance? It is unknowing about suffering, [unknowing about the origin of suffering, unknowing about the cessation of suffering, unknowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering], unknowing about the past, unknowing about the future, unknowing about the past and future, unknowing about specific conditionality and conditionally-arisen states' (cf. Dhs. 1162). ------- N: The Tiika repeats that there are two methods (pariyaaya): the method of the suttanta and the method of the abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities, with khandhas, elements and bases (ayaatanas). We read in the suttas about past lives, the present life and future lives. But in the ultimate sense past, present and future refer to naama and ruupa, to the five khandhas which arise and fall away. The ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (p.171) states : ’Herein, “about the past” (pubbante) is the past time, past aggregates, elements, bases (aayatanas). “About the future” (aparante)is the future time, future aggregates, elements, bases.” Moreover, there is ignorance about both the past and the future. What is khandha arises and falls away, but ignorance does not know this. We read in Ch XVII, 43, Here we are reminded to apply the text about ignorance to the dhamma appearing right now. Because of ignorance we do not realize the true nature of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound etc. If the right Path, which is satipatthaana, is developed at this moment, we shall come to know that seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and all dhammas appearing through the six doors are dukkha. Whatever dhamma arises and falls away at this moment is dukkha. ------ N: additional remark: also in the suttas the Buddha speaks all the time about these realities. Nina. #92979 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: monk's life style. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 26-nov-2008, om 14:17 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > For > example, for a man who doesn't "go wild" just by seeing a pretty > woman, > there is no need to "see only teeth." Far better it is for him to > see whatever > arises, including his own namas, observing and nipping-in-the-bud > any papa~nca > when it arises or even is just about to arise. A calm guarding of > the senses > is best except in special cases ------ N: There is more to it. Teeth was his meditation subject, he just had accumulations for jhana and to hold on firmly to his meditation subject. It did not go this way: there is a woman, take care, do not look, look only at the teeth. No suppression, it just occurred very naturally. ------ H: Bhikkhus are renunciants. They absent themselves from many things that entice the senses, most especially sexuality. That last makes them quite vulnerable to enticement - to arousal of sexual feelings. When they go out among the laity, the temptations loom large, larger than they would for lay persons, and to such an extent that it is wise for them to literally turn away. ------- N: Again, there is more to it. I am not just thinking of temptation. The whole lifestyle of the monk is like the arahat's. There are many rules about their demeanour. It would not look right for a monk to run, or swing his arms. Such conduct is inspired by lobha and it can remind us too how often lobha conditions our gestures. The right way of postures, walking etc. is indeed very worthy, it impresses, it shows the force of Vinaya. Perhaps you should live in Thailand to understand this. The arahat walks about mindfully all the time. The monks who are not arahats still learn to follow the arahat's life style. The monk can be an example for laypeople. I remember Kom saying that it was difficult in the beginning how to hold his bowl, walk properly in his robes. All these small rules are very meaningful. Nina. #92980 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:27 pm Subject: Subject: Sri Lanka REvisited, Ch 8, no 2 nichiconn dear friends, N: The King presented Mahinda with the Royal Park in Anurådhapura and this place became the Mahå-vihåra, the center of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Buddhaghosa, the autor of the "Visuddhimagga" and most of the Commentaries to the Tipitaka, resided in the Mahå-vihåra. c: Oh no! not "Buddhaghosa, the autor"! No such thing! Not to say the V is a book of divine revelation (nor that the gods didn't have a hand in it) but more compiler, methinks, with gratitude. Thanks for the recent posts from Rob's forum, btw, Nina. Very nice. Well, the missing h just stuck out when i was thinking the Commentaries as we have them do refer to the Visuddhimagga. Not a problem. N: We visited the Thuparama, the oldest stupa in Sri Lanka, where the relic of the Buddha's right collarbone had been enshrined. Near the Thuparama is the cremation place of bhikkhuní Sangamitta, Mahinda's sister, who brought a sapling of the Bodhi-tree to Sri Lanka. After her arrival the order of bhikkhunís was founded in Sri Lanka. c: The Inception of Discipline talks about how the monks went various places - (p.57) << And all of them, as they went to the respective districts, took with them four companions each considering that a chapter of five was sufficient to confer the higher ordination in the border districts. {Vin. i, 197} >> (p.80) << At that time the Princess Anula became desirous of entering the Order and told the King about it. On hearing her words the King spoke thus to the Elder, "Sir, the Princess Anula wishes to enter the Order, admit her into the Order." "Great King, it is not permissible for us to admit womenfolk into the Order. But there lives at Pataliputta my sister the Elder(-nun) Sanghamitta. Send for her. Further, Great King, the Bodhi of three previous Perfectly Enlightened Ones has stood in this Island and it is meet that the Bodhi of our Exalted One which diffuses clusters of dazzling rays should be established here. Therefore despatch a message so that Sanghamitta will come here bringing with her the Bodhi." >> N: We ended our walk in Thuparama. c: thanks for taking us with you, connie #92981 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "There are no persons" vs "there are no beings?" TGrand458@... Hi Nina, All I know you're leaving soon. Appreciate you getting back to me before leaving. Maybe you can respond when you get back. In a message dated 11/26/2008 12:36:45 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Ignorance is ignorance of the Four Noble > Truths and > or conditionality principles of impermanence, affliction, and no-self. ------- N: Yes, and what is impermanent, dukkha and not self? What is arising now? Seeing, or attachment to what is seen. .......................................................... TG: So far so good. ............................................ The arising and falling away of seeing has to be realised. How? Not confusing seeing with visible object. How? To be aware and directly understand the characteristic of each one of them. Pa~n~naa is very precise. The three characteristics always pertain to the dhamma now that arises because of conditions. I will close off my email, but I can give a few quotes from Vis. Ch XVII. As I said to Larry we often have to return to this chapter. > -------- Vis. 58. According to the Suttanta method 'ignorance' is unknowing about the four instances beginning with suffering. According to the Abhidhamma method it is unknowing about the eight instances [that is to say, the above-mentioned four] together with [the four] beginning with the past; for this is said: 'Herein, what is ignorance? It is unknowing about suffering, [unknowing about the origin of suffering, unknowing about the cessation of suffering, unknowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering], unknowing about the past, unknowing about the future, unknowing about the past and future, unknowing about specific conditionality and conditionally-arisen states' (cf. Dhs. 1162). ------- .......................................................... TG: Its amazing you make such a big deal about "seeing now" when the Abhidh amma is talking here about knowing the past and future. Of course what is meant here is unknowing the conditionality principles that did APPLY to the past and will apply to the future. This whole passage contradicts your main thesis. It indicates that Dhamma and knowledge of impermanence, affliction, no-self is as much about knowing the principles/processes of conditionality, past, and future, as it is about applying it to "current experience." Which of course it is. Chalk one up for the Abhidhamma... chalk one down for the "mangled interpretation" of it. NONE of this indicates "knowing ultimate realities with their own characteristics." ................................................................. N: The Tiika repeats that there are two methods (pariyaaya): the method of the suttanta and the method of the abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities, with khandhas, elements and bases (ayaatanas). We read in the suttas about past lives, the present life and future lives. But in the ultimate sense past, present and future refer to naama and ruupa, to the five khandhas which arise and fall away. .................................................................... TG: The Suttas deal with elements and bases as well. That's where the Abhidhamma tinkerer's learned about it. The Sutta just don't deal with it in a new and invented way. You have an extremely narrow view of what the Dhamma represents IMO. One can easily examine and distinguish "visual base," for example, without needing to overlay a view upon it as an ultimate reality. From listening to you, the Dhamma is very one dimensional..."know dhammas now." The Buddha's teachings are no where near that limited or limiting. ............................................................................ The ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (p.171) states : ’Herein, “about the past” (pubbante) is the past time, past aggregates, elements, bases (aayatanas). “About the future” (aparante)is the future time, future aggregates, elements, bases.” Moreover, there is ignorance about both the past and the future. What is khandha arises and falls away, but ignorance does not know this. ....................................................................... TG: I have no problem with this passage...I'm surprised that you don't. A whole lot of talk about the past and future here. What happened to "knowing dhammas that appear now"? ;-) .................................................................. We read in Ch XVII, 43, .............................................................. TG: This is very correct! ........................................................ Here we are reminded to apply the text about ignorance to the dhamma appearing right now. ........................................................... TG: NO ... we are not reminded such! It doesn't say that at all. This interpretation is problematic and vague. Since I know where you would go with it, I can safely say it is wrong as well. Being mindful of the aggregates and elements and the conditions pertaining thereto is one thing. It is a good thing! "Seeing" them as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics" as if that were the goal, is a whole different thing. It is needlessly "substantializing" what needn't be and what shouldn't be "substantialized." It is a view that unnecessarily drives the mind to entangle with phenomena ... instead of leading the mind to detach from phenomena. The Buddha's teachings always lead toward detaching the mind from phenomena...even (or perhaps especially) when dealing directly with elements and aggregates. ........................................................................... Because of ignorance we do not realize the true nature of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound etc. ....................................................................... TG: This sounds good. ...................................................... If the right Path, which is satipatthaana, is developed at this moment, we shall come to know that seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and all dhammas appearing through the six doors are dukkha. Whatever dhamma arises and falls away at this moment is dukkha. ............................................................................ TG: Up until the last sentence it sounded perfectly good. The last sentence starts putting on barriers and limits to understanding conditionality principles, including dukkha. Dukkha, impermanence, no-self, need to be understood and realized in the most comprehensive manner possible. That's why the past and future are introduced in the process as well!!! Direct awareness of particular experiences is ONLY A METHOD whereby the mind can generate a greater vision of conditionality processes and through that greater vision...detach completely (if successful) from phenomena. Don't get me wrong, I consider mindfulness EXTREMELY important. I just consider the "ultimate reality view" that you overlay upon your brand of mindfulness to be uncalled for and detrimental. And not the teaching of the Buddha. .............................................................................. ................ ----- N: additional remark: also in the suttas the Buddha speaks all the time about these realities. Nina. .............................................................................. .......... TG: The Buddha speaks a lot about elements and aggregates. But not in the way that you would interpret them. Not even close. TG OUT #92982 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Alex and Sarah In a message dated 11/26/2008 10:45:09 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Sarah, Where in the suttas are there unambiguous analysis of "concepts" vs "realities"? Thank you for more clarification, but I still believe that ALL things (including concepts) are conditioned, impermanent and not-self. It is sad that Neo_Platonic forms got their way into Buddha Dhamma. As a sutta (sorry, I forgot the number) has said: "It is impossible that anyone with right view would consider anything as permanent/self"p ................................................................ TG: Quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as pleasurable – there is no such possibility.” – In reference to the impermanent destructive nature of all formations. (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) TG OUT #92983 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Thank you very much TG, another translation: `Ananda, the bhikkhu knows, it is impossible, that one come to right view should take any determination as permanent. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any determination as permanent.It is impossible, that one come to right view should take any determination as pleasant. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any determination as pleasant.It is impossible, that one come to right view should take any thought as his. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any thought as his. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/115-bahudhatuka-e.htm The above does say a lot about anyone who believes in any permanent "thing" 5 Khandas are anicca and ANYTHING that we can imagine (including concepts) is included into it. I don't want to offend anyone, but if any commentator (no matter how famous) claims anything as permanent, then according to MN115 that person doesn't have right view. With best wishes, #92984 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:04 pm Subject: Alien & Remote: Nothing is worth clinging to! bhikkhu0 Friends: Nothing is Worth Clinging to! A certain Bhikkhu once asked the Blessed Buddha: Venerable Sir, how should one know and see, in order to eliminate all ignorance and to facilitate the emergence of real and true knowledge? Bhikkhu, when one has heard that: Nothing is worth clinging to, then one directly knows everything! Having directly known everything, one fully understands everything! Having fully understood everything, one sees & regards all aspects, signs & phenomena quite differently: As something remote, as something alien, as something other, & neither as something that is 'me' nor 'mine', nor as an 'I', a 'self, or an 'Ego'! One regards the eye, forms, visual consciousness, eye-contact, feelings & experiences caused seeing quite differently... As something remote... One regards the ear, sounds, auditory consciousness, ear-contact, and feelings & experiences by hearing differently... As something foreign... One regards the nose, all smells, olfactory consciousness, nose-contact, & smelled feelings & experiences differently. As something quite alien! One regards the tongue, taste, gustatory consciousness, tongue-contact, tasted feelings & experiences differently... As something superficial... One regards the body, touch, tactile consciousness, body-contacts and touched feelings & experiences very differently... As something external! One regards the mind, thought, mental consciousness, mental-contacts, & thought feelings & experiences differently... As something all detached!!! When, Bhikkhu, whoever knows & sees all signs thus, ignorance is left behind by him and real and true knowledge has emerged... Detached Alien Remoteness: Nothing is worth clinging to! Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [50] Section 35: On The 6 Senses. The Elimination of Ignorance: 80. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net Detached Alien Remoteness: Nothing is worth clinging to! #92985 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 11/26/2008 7:32:47 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Thank you very much TG, another translation: `Ananda, the bhikkhu knows, it is impossible, that one come to right view should take any determination as permanent. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any determination as permanent.It is impossible, that one come to right view should take any determination as pleasant. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any determination as pleasant.It is impossible, that one come to right view should take any thought as his. It is possible that an ordinary person should take any thought as his. _http://www.budsas.http://wwhttp://wwhttp://www.budsahttp:_ (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/115-bahudhatuka-e.htm) The above does say a lot about anyone who believes in any permanent "thing" 5 Khandas are anicca and ANYTHING that we can imagine (including concepts) is included into it. I don't want to offend anyone, but if any commentator (no matter how famous) claims anything as permanent, then according to MN115 that person doesn't have right view. ..................................................... TG: I agree. TG OUT #92986 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Alex & TG, More meat here to discuss, thank you. --- On Thu, 27/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >TG: Quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ..... S: In my translation of MLDB (same page), but maybe a different edition, it has: “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any ***formation*** as permanent – there is no such possibility.” The footnote to this says: "MA: a person possessing right view (di.t.thisampanno) is one possessing the view of the path, a noble disciple at the minimal level of a stream-enterer. 'Formation' here is to be understood as a conditioned formation (sankhata-sankhaara), i.e., anything conditioned." What is 'formed up' are all the elements or ayatanas discussed in the sutta apart from nibbana, the unconditioned element. These elements are 'The All'. When it comes to the last section in the same paragraph, it says: "He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right vew could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something as self - there is such a possibility.'" The footnote to this is interesting. It says that in this section "sankhaara, 'formation,' is replaced by dhamma, 'thing.' MA explains that this substitution is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. However, in view of the fact that Nibbaana is described as imperishable (accuta) and as bliss (sukha), and is also liable to be misconceived as self (see MN 1.26), the word sankhaara may be taken to include only the conditioned, while dhamma includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned. This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of Aacariya Buddhaghosa." Interesting! Metta, Sarah ======= #92987 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Its hard not to see the clarity of this quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) As for Nibbana, it is always spoken of figuratively, not literally. I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what it is...if anything at all. What is clear, from the Buddha's teaching, is that it is the end of suffering...and that may be good enough for most of us. Anyway, the gist of the note below as well as the quote above seems to put a chink in your view of concepts. What do you think? Also, am I to understand that Aacariya Buddhaghosa does not accept an interpretation of a commentary? TG OUT In a message dated 11/26/2008 11:51:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: "He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right vew could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility."He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right vew could treat anything as self - the"H The footnote to this is interesting. It says that in this section "sankhaara, 'formation,' is replaced by dhamma, 'thing.' MA explains that this substitution is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. However, in view of the fact that Nibbaana is described as imperishable (accuta) and as bliss (sukha), and is also liable to be misconceived as self (see MN 1.26), the word sankhaara may be taken to include only the conditioned, while dhamma includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned. This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of Aacariya Buddhaghosa.T Interesting! Metta, Sarah #92988 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Thu, 27/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >Its hard not to see the clarity of this quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) .... S: Let's be precise here: any "formation" (sa"nkhaara), as in "sabbe sa"nkhaara anicca". ..... >As for Nibbana, it is always spoken of figuratively, not literally. I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what it is...if anything at all.. What is clear, from the Buddha's teaching, is that it is the end of suffering... and that may be good enough for most of us. ..... S: I think it's also very clear that it's the asa"nkhaara (unconditioned) element. ..... >Anyway, the gist of the note below as well as the quote above seems to put a chink in your view of concepts. What do you think? ..... S: No, I don't think so. Concepts are not sa"nkhara dhammas, but to stress that there is no atta anywhere at all, it is stressed that nothing at all, whether sa"nkhara dhammas, (nibbana), or even concepts, such as 'kasina' can be taken as atta by the wise. In the case of a worldling, concepts or realities can be taken for atta. ..... >Also, am I to understand that Aacariya Buddhaghosa does not accept an interpretation of a commentary? .... S: No, I think the note was rather unclear, that's all. I think the relevant line of the commentary (by Buddhaghosa) is this: "Attavaare kasi.naadipa.n.nattisangahattha.m sa"nkhaaranti avatvaa ka~nci dhammanti vutta.m.". S: I think the gist is what is summarised here: >MA explains that this substitution [S: i.e. dhamma for sa"nkhaara] is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. This indicates that the earlier references to sa"nkaara do not include such concepts. I think the rest of the note was a suggestion by the translators which might be relevant in another context but is not given by Buddhaghosa in this one and is therefore not relevant here. Metta, Sarah ======== #92989 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, I just like to encourage you to keep writing these paragraphs for us all to consider: --- On Tue, 18/11/08, sprlrt wrote: >What is purpose of reading/listening/ considering/ writing/talking to/about the Dhamma? Pariyatti should be seen as the only way to decondition sankhara khandha (particularly the various atta-related ditthi) and sanna khandha (atta-sanna in the specific) from the notion of self in all its innumerable aspects and implications, which conditions the arising of the others miccha-magga/ patipatti factors. I think this is why K. Sujin keeps reminding us of detachment and not expecting anything in return from the Dhamma, and to approach it with the purpose of understanding on its own. .... S: Yes, all well-said. In truth, there is no one in the world, it is only thinking that there are people and things. What is experienced through the five sense doors are merely rupas, elements, which fall away immediately. However, the memory keeps on conditioning thinking about them, the story of these realities with atta-sa~n~naa, as something that stays, or of many people in the world. However, if there is no thinking now, there are no people, just visible object or sound which appears, for example. So, ignorance deceives us, conditioning wrong view of what appears. Only through the development of understanding and detachment will ignorance be prevented from performing this function anymore. Even though there is so much ignorance, right understanding and satipatthana can begin to develop and it is the function of pa~n~naa (right understanding) to be detached as you stress. That's why if there is a desire to concentrate/watch/label/be aware of a particular object, it's not pa~n~naa, but lobha(attachment), instead. Thanks as always for helping me to reflect further. As you suggest, pariyatti is very important to help rectify views about the truth at this moment. Metta, Sarah ========= #92990 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:28 am Subject: Re: More on anatta sprlrt Hi Colette (and Sarah) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > > > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, > > colette: sounds good. > --------------------- > A: Ehi, that's a good start! > > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door > processes, and > > thinking, > > colette: hmmm, that's a big chunck to stick on a single fork. Mouth > size is gonna have to increase. A: Indeed > > Lets consider the FACTS of EXTERNAL vs. INTERNAL. Is the concept > actually an object IF the thinking was done EXTERNALLY to your mind? > In other words, if the thoughts were in another mind and merely > presented to you then you are being spoon fed, a prisoner being > forced to eat, and we can ask the Irish about Bobby Sands and his > aversion to eating. Is the process your process or is it the process > of an External mind? Are you, then, making what is external and > INTERNAL Truth/REality based on the acceptance and hypnotism of the > EXTERNAL Truth/Reality? > ---------------------------- A: You are talking about actions here, not about thoughts/concepts right? > > > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door > processes, and > > thinking, like seeing and the other 4 sense door processes, are > nama, > > the dhammas that experience an object, which are rupa in the case of > > the 5 swense door, rupa is real (i.e. it actually exists), like > nama, > > that which experience an object, and are real because they arise and > > fall (one of the meaning of sankhara). > > colette: now I've put it all together here, and realize that I can't > possibly stick that in my mouth since GLUTTONY is clearly on the > fork. This is WAAAAAY OVER EXTENSION here. <....> > > Do not take out of one head and place in another head unless you are > prepared for CASTLE FRANKENSTEIN to be advanced upon. Since I'm > clearly plassing you at the operating table upon the frankenstein > monster, then that would mean that the public would then be advancing > upon your position. So I recomend hesitation, very slow movements > since "booby" is known to be in the area and booby seems to always be > equipped with TRAPS. <...> > A: You seem concerned of the possible pernicious conseguences of a statement like "we don't actually exists as such and such person" would carry. Well, yes of course it is possible to misunderstand it, and turn it into something on the line of "they don't actually exist as persons (while I actually do)", which incidentally is the prevailing line of thinking anyway. Alberto #92991 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Serious Questions About Time and Impermanence sarahprocter... Dear Howard, Thank you for sharing your reflections. A few comments interspersed below, probably just commenting on those parts I agree/disagree with for brevity. Just my thoughts, as you'll appreciate: --- On Fri, 21/11/08, upasaka@... wrote: >Here is the problem, as best I can formulate it in speech: It is crystal clear to me that "the past" is illusory and non-existent. (We may say and think that various events DID occur, but when that "did" is examined, I can't honestly say what it could mean. There is just the thinking now.) The future is also clearly non-existent. (We may conceptualize and hypothesize that certain events WILL occur, and even have assurance that some WILL occur, but when that "will" is examined, again I can't honestly say what it would mean.) Thus, there is no past, and there is no future, but only thinking("recollection"and "projection" ), which like everything else, occurs "now". .... S: So far, all agreed. ..... >On the other hand, with regard to occurrence right "now," I note that there is no duration to "now" whatsoever -- it is a zero-dimensional point - what one Zen master called a "pivot of nothingness. " For if "now" had extension "in time" and there were change within "now," then that would not be right now! ..... S: I don't agree with this... ..... >Also, on the other hand, there IS change. Certainly there is change to the content of consciousness. .... S: Yes! .... H:> But change requires time (or IS time), and time requires more than just "now," for what event can occur in zero time! .... S: I don't agree with the 'zero time'. .... H:> So, past is illusion, future is illusion, present is timeless(LOL! ) and ungraspable, and yet there is change. .... S: Yes, there is change because the present dhamma is not timeless, however brief it is, and it's most certainly graspable. The problems occur because what is incredibly fleeting is grasped. .... H:>And I think it wrong to look for individual details within what I've said for challenging, for no matter what valid challenging there might be, a genuine conundrum with regard to time and change remains. ..... S: Only with regard to thinking about such, but not in reality. There was no 'conundrum' for the Buddha or the arahats and they explained the details. .... H:> There is a great mystery-of-emptines s to time, the seeming of an outright contradiction that perhaps is the very basis for su~n~nata (anicca-dukkha- anatta). .... S: I don't see it like this, but appreciate you do. .... H:> It seems to me to be a mystery unsolvable by thought, but only fathomable by immersion right at the "pivot of nothingness" with all thought put aside and only supramundane, bright wisdom breaking through to reveal the truth. ..... S: Well, yes, except I'd add that even before the supramundane consciousness, when there is the clear insight into the rise and fall of realities at the 3rd and 4th stages of insight, any such 'conundrum' about the time or duration of realities would be completely clarified by such 'bright wisdom', I believe. Thanks for your reflections. Metta, Sarah ======= #92992 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 11/27/2008 12:44:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, --- On Thu, 27/11/08, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: >Its hard not to see the clarity of this quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) .... S: Let's be precise here: any "formation" (sa"nkhaara)S: Let's be precise here: any "formatio ........................................................... TG: Yes, let's be precise. This is a Nanamoli / Bodhi translation and I highly doubt they would have used "anything" if the term was "sankhara." Are you able to check that? I'm guessing the term in question is "dhamma" ... not "sankhara. If it is "sankhara, both Bodhi and Nanamoli made a big flaw because all three statements (below) use "anything" and do not distinguish an English difference between sankhara and dhamma. I would find it hard to believe they both erred so dramatically on a crucial passage. But let's see. My guess is you are thinking about another series of passages and not these. Let's clarify that please. “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as pleasurable – there is no such possibility.” – In reference to the impermanent destructive nature of all formations. (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ............................................................. ..... >As for Nibbana, it is always spoken of figuratively, not literally. I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what it is...if anything at all.. What is clear, from the Buddha's teaching, is that it is the end of suffering... and that may be good enough for most of us. ..... S: I think it's also very clear that it's the asa"nkhaara (unconditioned) element. ....................................................................... TG: Just what the heck does that mean? That makes "what Nibbana is" crystal clear to you? You have no doubts? That's a definition. I'm talking about "what it really is in terms of experience or the lack thereof." Do you know for certain? Unless you're an arahat, I'd find it hard to believe that you can know for sure. ................................................................. ..... >Anyway, the gist of the note below as well as the quote above seems to put a chink in your view of concepts. What do you think? ..... S: No, I don't think so. Concepts are not sa"nkhara dhammas, .................................................... TG: Sure they are, but that's another old argument. Oh, BTW, do you have a Sutta source to confirm this belief? That's all I need. Do the Suttas state that concepts are not sankhara? .............................................. but to stress that there is no atta anywhere at all, it is stressed that nothing at all, whether sa"nkhara dhammas, (nibbana), or even concepts, such as 'kasina' can be taken as atta by the wise. In the case of a worldling, concepts or realities can be taken for atta. ................................................ TG: In the case of a worldling anything can be taken as 'self.' Your argument will fall flat if the term in question above turns out to be "dhamma" instead of "sankhara." If it does turn out to be "sankhara," then we still have the debate as to whether "concepts" are sankhara or not. Let's find out whether the term in question is dhamma or sankhara before engaging in more debate about concepts. ..................................................................... ..... >Also, am I to understand that Aacariya Buddhaghosa does not accept an interpretation of a commentary? .... S: No, I think the note was rather unclear, that's all. I think the relevant line of the commentary (by Buddhaghosa) is this: "Attavaare kasi.naadipa."Attavaare k"Attavaare kasi.naadipa.n.nattisangahattha.m S: I think the gist is what is summarised here: >MA explains that this substitution [S: i.e. dhamma for sa"nkhaara] is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. This indicates that the earlier references to sa"nkaara do not include such concepts. ..................................................................... TG: None of this is my understanding at all. The term sankhara is meant to indicate conditions. The term dhamma to indicate both conditions and the "non-conditioned -- nibbana." Now the question is, if the quote in question is using "dhamma" then your arguments regarding "concept" here won't hold up and will have no Sutta basis. And your "inferrential sutta based case" is paper thin enough as it is. However, if the Suttas directly state that concepts are not Sankhara, then you are home free! Please show me that Sutta source from which you are so confident of your position. ........................................................................... I think the rest of the note was a suggestion by the translators which might be relevant in another context but is not given by Buddhaghosa in this one and is therefore not relevant here. ........................................................ TG: Then it was the translator/s that are convinced that Buddhaghosa didn't accept some commentary material? Hummm. They must have compelling evidence to state it with such completely certainty. It would be interesting to find out what it is. TG OUT #92993 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG, (Scott & all), --- On Thu, 27/11/08, _TGrand458@aol. TGr_ (mailto:TGrand458@aol. com) >>Its hard not to see the clarity of this quote -- “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ..... >>S: Let's be precise here: any "formation" (sa"nkhaara) S: Let's be precise here: any "formatio ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. >TG: Yes, let's be precise. This is a Nanamoli / Bodhi translation and I highly doubt they would have used "anything" if the term was "sankhara." Are you able to check that? I'm guessing the term in question is "dhamma" ... not "sankhara. .... S: Rest assured, I did check and it was "sankhara". [I also just checked to see whether it was my computer/typing that had the 'hiccups' or yours above and it was yours, lol:-)] ..... TG:> If it is "sankhara, both Bodhi and Nanamoli made a big flaw because all three statements (below) use "anything" and do not distinguish an English difference between sankhara and dhamma. I would find it hard to believe they both erred so dramatically on a crucial passage. But let's see. .... S: I remember BB telling me that in the revision of the translation, there were a lot of changes. My translation is dated 1995 and it says: ".....any formation as permanent...." ".....any formation as pleasurable..." ".....anything as self......" As you say, there was clearly a flaw in the translation you have which did not attempt to differentiate the terms in translation. ..... TG: >Let's clarify that please. “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.” (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as pleasurable – there is no such possibility.” – In reference to the impermanent destructive nature of all formations. (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) ..... S: Are you sure this is the order given in your translation? It should be: 1) permanent 2) pleasurable 3) self ...... TG:>>As for Nibbana, it is always spoken of figuratively, not literally. I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what it is...if anything at all.. What is clear, from the Buddha's teaching, is that it is the end of suffering... and that may be good enough for most of us. ...... >>S: I think it's also very clear that it's the asa"nkhaara (unconditioned) element. ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... >TG: Just what the heck does that mean? That makes "what Nibbana is" crystal clear to you? You have no doubts? That's a definition. I'm talking about "what it really is in terms of experience or the lack thereof." Do you know for certain? Unless you're an arahat, I'd find it hard to believe that you can know for sure. ..... S: let's keep it sweet:-) I'm discussing the Buddha's teachings and have no reason to doubt this, but forget it! ............. TG: >>Anyway, the gist of the note below as well as the quote above seems to put a chink in your view of concepts. What do you think? ...... >>S: No, I don't think so. Concepts are not sa"nkhara dhammas, ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... .... >TG: Sure they are, but that's another old argument. Oh, BTW, do you have a Sutta source to confirm this belief? That's all I need. Do the Suttas state that concepts are not sankhara? .... S: Probably not, they usually talk about the khandhas or other realities which are sankhara dhammas. In any case, I don't play the 'Suttas only' game rules. You could ask Alex:-) ..... ............. ......... ......... ......... ....... S:>>but to stress that there is no atta anywhere at all, it is stressed that nothing at all, whether sa"nkhara dhammas, (nibbana), or even concepts, such as 'kasina' can be taken as atta by the wise. In the case of a worldling, concepts or realities can be taken for atta. ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... >TG: In the case of a worldling anything can be taken as 'self.' Your argument will fall flat if the term in question above turns out to be "dhamma" instead of "sankhara." ..... S: That's why I checked first and it was sankhara, sankhara and then dhamma:-) ..... TG:> If it does turn out to be "sankhara," then we still have the debate as to whether "concepts" are sankhara or not. Let's find out whether the term in question is dhamma or sankhara before engaging in more debate about concepts. ..... S: To be honest, I've been enjoying the holiday whilst you debate with Scott:-) , end of holiday, it seems, unless he kindly joins in with an analysis of each word! More later, time permitting... Metta, Sarah ======== #92994 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts sarahprocter... Hi TG, part 2 --- On Thu, 27/11/08, TGrand458@... wrote: ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... ...... >Also, am I to understand that Aacariya Buddhaghosa does not accept an interpretation of a commentary? ..... S: No, I think the note was rather unclear, that's all. I think the relevant line of the commentary (by Buddhaghosa) is this: "Attavaare kasi.naadipa. "Attavaare k"Attavaare kasi.naadipa. n.nattisang ahatt ha.m S: I think the gist is what is summarised here: S:>>MA explains that this substitution [S: i.e. dhamma for sa"nkhaara] is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. This indicates that the earlier references to sa"nkaara do not include such concepts. ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... >TG: None of this is my understanding at all. The term sankhara is meant to indicate conditions. The term dhamma to indicate both conditions and the "non-conditioned -- nibbana." .... S: Yes, often this is so, as in 'sabbe sankhara anicca, etc". (A quibble here, sankhara refers to conditioned dhammas, not 'conditions'. I guess that'll start another debate, lol!) ..... TG:> Now the question is, if the quote in question is using "dhamma" then your arguments regarding "concept" here won't hold up and will have no Sutta basis. And your "inferrential sutta based case" is paper thin enough as it is. However, if the Suttas directly state that concepts are not Sankhara, then you are home free! Please show me that Sutta source from which you are so confident of your position. ..... S: Well here it refers to sankhara, sankhara and then dhamma to include sankhara and pannatti. I'd have thought that was pretty good. Furthermore, it is a Sutta on 'The Many Kinds of Elements'. Which are the elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element etc. As the footnote to the description of the elements says after enumerating what the elements are, "it does not include concepts, abstract ideas, judgments, etc. Though these latter are included in the notion of mind-object (dhammaaramma.na), the mind-object element includes only things that exist by their own nature, not things constructed by the mind." Before you complain about the wording, it's the wording of Nanamoli/Bodhi in explanation, not mine. The text then refers to the ayatanas and D.O. Nowhere are concepts included as needing to be known or known by the wise. .... ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... S:>>I think the rest of the note was a suggestion by the translators which might be relevant in another context but is not given by Buddhaghosa in this one and is therefore not relevant here. ............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ >TG: Then it was the translator/s that are convinced that Buddhaghosa didn't accept some commentary material? Hummm. They must have compelling evidence to state it with such completely certainty. It would be interesting to find out what it is. .... S: I think the note was a little unclear. It's Buddhaghosa's commentary, but Nanamoli/Bodhi were putting forward another possible understanding, i.e. the one you suggest above which is often given re sankhara, sankhara, dhamma, the latter to include nibbana. I'd follow the commentary here, but would not have known this meaning here without it. Metta, Sarah ======== #92995 From: "colette" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:06 am Subject: Re: More on anatta ksheri3 Hi Alberto, > > > A:> Concepts can only be the object of thinking, mind door > > processes, and > > > thinking, > > > > colette: hmmm, that's a big chunck to stick on a single fork. Mouth > > size is gonna have to increase. > > A: Indeed > > > > > Lets consider the FACTS of EXTERNAL vs. INTERNAL. Is the concept > > actually an object IF the thinking was done EXTERNALLY to your mind? > > In other words, if the thoughts were in another mind and merely > > presented to you then you are being spoon fed, a prisoner being > > forced to eat, and we can ask the Irish about Bobby Sands and his > > aversion to eating. Is the process your process or is it the process > > of an External mind? Are you, then, making what is external and > > INTERNAL Truth/REality based on the acceptance and hypnotism of the > > EXTERNAL Truth/Reality? > > ---------------------------- > > > A: You are talking about actions here, not about thoughts/concepts right? > colette: NO, I'm speaking of the mind, the alaya-vijnana, etc. The mind thinks in terms of actions as well as thoughts. We can find this shown in the expertise of martial artists. The body needs to be trained, just as the mind needs training. In the martial arts they repeat movements over and over and... so that there is no thinking about the movement. When I was recouperating from having my face re- attached to my head I was sitting on the couch at a dear friend's home when she and her lover started screwin' around with each. I have a perfect view of the scene and her boyfriend, now her husband, raised his leg as if to kick which he did. The key point here is that he maintained perfect balance on a single foot, he kept his knee joint high so that he only had to extend his lower leg, and he repeated this motion for a good ten minutes while playfully keeping his partner at bay. Thus we see that he did not have to think his leg to stay up nor to maintain balance, it was natural for him (I found out that he's a fifth degree black belt in Thi Quan Do). I could use myself as the example when I was learning the breathing technique of PRANAYAMA. Here, the practicioner must maintain the same length of time for each facet of the excersise, INHALE, HOLD, EXHALE, REST; at first it's mind-numbing because of the rigours this puts on the body but eventually the act of reciting the same numbers over and over again disappears and the breathing becomes part of the practicioner. -------------------------------------------- > > A: You seem concerned of colette: wow, you put me in a difficult position by suggesting what's in my mind, no? ------------------------- the possible pernicious conseguences colette: I'll leave the word pernicious alone but what's this? CONSEQUENCES? So, you speak of RESULTANT PHENOMENA. Cause & Effect. Now I see the road we're on. -------------------------------- of a > statement like "we don't actually exists as such and such person" > would carry. colette: that depends on who you would say such a thing to. If, for instance, you said that to a Western devotee of Monotheism/Creationism well, you take your life in your own hands since the Inquisition still exists today. Now, since we are practicing the Buddhist path I can I can only partly agree with that since I'm really starting to get into SVABHAVA or, as Buddhists would say, SABHAVA, and this is taking me into a totally cool form of viewing the Atman/Anatman ------------------------------------ Well, yes of course it is possible to misunderstand it, > and turn it into something on the line of "they don't actually exist > as persons (while I actually do)", which incidentally is the > prevailing line of thinking anyway. > > Alberto colette: You must advertise for the SuperGlue people since you are like glue in that you are clinging heavily when you just add onto the end of the thought that people think of their own self and disregard/discount/disrespect/dis... the self of another person i.e. "which incidentally is the prevailing line of thinking anyway". <....> Thanks for the reply Alberto, have a Happy Thanksgiving (a holiday in the states to give thanks for the bounty of life we have today). toodles, colette #92996 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and TG), Regarding: TG: "...If it does turn out to be 'sankhara,' then we still have the debate as to whether 'concepts' are sankhara or not. Let's find out whether the term in question is dhamma or sankhara before engaging in more debate about concepts. S: "To be honest, I've been enjoying the holiday whilst you debate with Scott:-) , end of holiday, it seems, unless he kindly joins in with an analysis of each word!" Scott: From the second edition of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi, 2001: "Here, Aananda, a bhikkhu understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view (di.t.thisampanno puggalo) could treat any formation (sa"nkhaara.m) as permanent - there is no such possibility. And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person (puthujjano ) might treat some formation (sa"nkhaara.m) as permanent - there is such a possibility.' He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation (sa"nkhaara.m ) as pleasurable - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation (sa"nkhaara.m) as pleasurable - there is such a possibility.' He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything (dhamma.m) as self - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something (dhamma.m) as self - there is such a possibility.' "Idhaananda, bhikkhu 'a.t.thaanameta.m anavakaaso ya.m di.t.thisampanno puggalo ka~nci **sa"nkhaara.m** niccato upagaccheyya, neta.m .thaana.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati; '.thaana~nca kho eta.m vijjati ya.m puthujjano ka~nci **sa"nkhaara.m** niccato upagaccheyya, .thaanameta.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati; 'a.t.thaanameta.m anavakaaso ya.m di.t.thisampanno puggalo ka~nci **sa"nkhaara.m** sukhato upagaccheyya, neta.m .thaana.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati; '.thaana~nca kho eta.m vijjati ya.m puthujjano ka~nci **sa"nkhaara.m** sukhato upagaccheyya, .thaanameta.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati. 'A.t.thaanameta.m anavakaaso ya.m di.t.thisampanno puggalo ka~nci **dhamma.m** attato upagaccheyya, neta.m .thaana.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati, '.thaana~nca kho eta.m vijjati ya.m puthujjano ka~nci **dhamma.m** attato upagaccheyya, .thaanameta.m vijjatii'ti pajaanaati." Scott: Enjoy. I'm on holiday until I get the essay I requested. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #92997 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Hello TG, Sarah and all, I've found another interesting thing. "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html So concepts are made on namarupa & vinnana which are impermanent, dependently arisen, not-self and so on. I also hope that everyone would agree with the right view of that 5 aggregates are anicca-dukkha-anatta. 5 aggregates is what samsara is made of. It is impossible to state anything lying outside of 5 aggregates (SN 35.23). "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html Concepts are within that "all" which is anicca-dukkha-anatta. With best wishes, #92998 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah, TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > Hi Alex & TG, > S: In my translation of MLDB (same page), but maybe a different >edition, it has: “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person >possessing right view could treat any ***formation*** as permanent >â€" there is no such possibility.” I do not think that translating a thing from "sankhara" or "dhamma" changes anything. Concepts can apply ONLY to 5 aggregates (or vinnana namarupa) which are impermanent conditioned and dependently arisen. Concepts can ONLY arise when there is vinnana + other nama factors are present. This itself makes concepts conditioned. "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html > The footnote to this says: > > "MA: a person possessing right view (di.t.thisampanno) is one possessing the view of the path, a noble disciple at the minimal level of a stream-enterer. 'Formation' here is to be understood as a conditioned formation (sankhata-sankhaara), i.e., anything conditioned." >>> Is there anything (other than Nibbana) unconditioned? >This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of >Aacariya Buddhaghosa." > > Interesting! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= For the sake of Ven. Buddhaghosa I hope he considers EVERYTHING as impermanent, including concepts. With best wishes, #92999 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Working backwards here... In a message dated 11/27/2008 2:52:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, part 2 --- On Thu, 27/11/08, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: ......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... ...... >Also, am I to understand that Aacariya Buddhaghosa does not accept an interpretation of a commentary? ..... S: No, I think the note was rather unclear, that's all. I think the relevant line of the commentary (by Buddhaghosa) is this: ............................................................ TG: Where is the confusion und unclarity about this which you posted... MA explains that this substitution is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. However, in view of the fact that Nibbaana is described as imperishable (accuta) and as bliss (sukha), and is also liable to be misconceived as self (see MN 1.26), the word sankhaara may be taken to include only the conditioned, while dhamma includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned. This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of Aacariya Buddhaghosa.M OK, on reading it, is says he does not endorse the comment. I'm reading that to mean he does not support it or accept it...but honestly, it could be read to be a "non-comment" by Buddhaghosa so I'll have to give you a pass. LOL .............................................................................. ........ "Attavaare kasi.naadipa. "Attavaare k"Attavaare kasi.naadipa. n.nattisang ahatt ha.m S: I think the gist is what is summarised here: S:>>MA explains that this substitution [S: i.e. dhamma for sa"nkhaara] is made to include concepts, such as a kasi.na sign, etc', which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. This indicates that the earlier references to sa"nkaara do not include such concepts. ......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... >TG: None of this is my understanding at all. The term sankhara is meant to indicate conditions. The term dhamma to indicate both conditions and the "non-conditioned -- nibbana." .... S: Yes, often this is so, as in 'sabbe sankhara anicca, etc". (A quibble here, sankhara refers to conditioned dhammas, not 'conditions'S: Yes, often this is so, as in 'sabbe sankha .................... ........................................................... TG: No small point at all. I agree with you and you are right. Oops. Retract that. LOL I understood "sankhata" to refer the "conditioned phenomena" and "sankhara" to refer to "conditioning phenomena." Of course essentially they are the same thing -- condition based phenomena. One perspective considers it by looking back at past causes, the other perspective considers it by looking at the potential future conditions. Anyway, that is what I have read. ............................................................................. ..... TG:> Now the question is, if the quote in question is using "dhamma" then your arguments regarding "concept" here won't hold up and will have no Sutta basis. And your "inferrential sutta based case" is paper thin enough as it is. However, if the Suttas directly state that concepts are not Sankhara, then you are home free! Please show me that Sutta source from which you are so confident of your position. ..... S: Well here it refers to sankhara, sankhara and then dhamma to include sankhara and pannatti. I'd have thought that was pretty good. Furthermore, it is a Sutta on 'The Many Kinds of Elements'. Which are the elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element etc. As the footnote to the description of the elements says after enumerating what the elements are, "it does not include concepts, abstract ideas, judgments, etc. Though these latter are included in the notion of mind-object (dhammaaramma.S: Well here it refers to sankhara, sankhara and then dhamma to include sankhara and pannatti. I'd have thought that w Before you complain about the wording, it's the wording of Nanamoli/Bodhi in explanation, not mine. The text then refers to the ayatanas and D.O. Nowhere are concepts included as needing to be known or known by the wise. .... ............................................................................. TG: OKay! I got it now. I guess I'm the one who screwed up the translations or got it from another source than Bodhi / Nanamoli. I'll have to fix that and I'm glad that by writing to you it was called to my attention! So I've read the notes and the explanations and its all very interesting. The point you want to make, that "concepts" are meant to be included in the "dhamma" line, is the exact point that Buddhaghosa would NOT ENDORSE! Boddhi and Nanamoli are not saying that "concepts" are included by "dhamma," but merely that "commentaries" are claiming that. So now its getting clear...apparently Buddhaghosa is not on record of being on your side of this! Nor is Bodhi or Nanamoli backing you up ... only a commentarial interpretation!. So we're back to square one. The commentary vs the Suttas. And as I've just read, you say that the Suttas do not state such. So, you I guess willingly like the "new interpretation" of the commentaries" over the silence of the Suttas. Just so we're clear. ;-) TG OUT