#94000 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:12 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn cornerstone dear friends, Part II. The Development of the Theory continues: Another doctrinal controversy that has left its mark on the Theravada version of the dhamma theory is the one concerning the theory of tri-temporal existence (sarvamastivada). What is revolutionary about this theory, advanced by the Sarvastivadins, is that it introduced a metaphysical dimension to the doctrine of dhammas and thus paved the way for the erosion of its empirical foundation. For this theory makes an empirically unverifiable distinction between the actual being of the dhammas as phenomena and their ideal being as noumena. It assumes that the substances of all dhammas persist in all the three divisions of time -- past, present, and future -- while their manifestations as phenomena are impermanent and subject to change. Accordingly, a dhamma actualizes itself only in the present moment of time, but "in essence" it continues to subsist in all the three temporal periods. As is well known, this resulted in the transformation of the dhamma theory into a svabhavavada, "the doctrine of own-nature." It also paved the way for a veiled recognition, if not for a categorical assumption, of the distinction between substance and quality. What interests us here is the fact that although the Theravadins rejected this metaphysical theory of tri-temporal existence, including its qualified version as accepted by the Kasyapiyas,23 it was not without its influence on the Theravada version of the dhamma theory. {23. See Y. Karunadasa, "Vibhajyavada versus Sarvastivada: The Buddhist Controversy on Time," Kalyani: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (Colombo, 1983), Vol.II, pp.16ff.} This influence is to be seen in the post-canonical exegetical literature of Sri Lanka where, for the first time, the term sabhava (Skt svabhava) came to be used as a synonym for dhamma. Hence the recurrent definition: "Dhammas are so called because they bear their own nature" (attano sabhavat dharenti ti dhamma).24 Now the question that arises here is whether the Theravadins used the term sabhava in the same sense as the Sarvastivadins did. Did the Theravadins assume the metaphysical view that the substance of a dhamma persists throughout the three phases of time? In other words, does this amount to the admission that there is a duality between the dhamma and its sabhava, between the bearer and the borne, a dichotomy which goes against the grain of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta? {24. Cf. e.g. MhNdA 261; DhsA 126; VsmS V 6.} This situation has to be considered in the context of the logical apparatus used by the Abhidhammikas in defining the dhammas. This involves three main kinds of definition. The first is called agency definition (kattu-sadhana) because it attributes agency to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta (consciousness) as "that which thinks" (cinteti ti cittat).25 The second is called instrumental definition (karana-sadhana) because it attributes instrumentality to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta as "that through which one thinks" (cinteti ti etena cittat).26 The third is called definition by nature (bhava-sadhana) whereby the abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus. Such, for example, is the definition," The mere act of thinking itself is citta (cintanamattam eva cittat)." 27 {25. See ADSVM 4. Cf. Cintetr ti cittat. Órammanat vijanatr ti attho. Yathaha: Visayavijananalakkhanat cittan ti. Sati hi nissayasamanantaradipaccaye na vina arammanena cittam 1uppajjatr ti tassa ta lakkhanata vutta. Etena niralambanavadrmatat patikkhittat hoti (ibid.). 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid.} awaiting further developments, connie #94001 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how to view the self sprlrt Hi Howard, H: As I view the matter, when we see a sight (also called "visible object"), it is an entire palette of color. The colors are all there, and form a variety of shapes, but the inventory of colors and the shape-patterns they form are not part of the sight, per se. A: I believe that groups of rupas making up visible object, at the moment of its presence, take up space, itself a rupa (i.e. visual object has shape, or form if you prefer). H: Further processing, mind-door processing, is required to cognize these. A: I agree. Alberto #94002 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone sukinderpal Dear Nina, ========= N: I want to especially highlight this: Sukin: about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves > around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned variously and > NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored.> What strikes me in all the discussions on Karunadasa and his own text is that it is so theoretical. Certainly, much in it is not incorrect, but as I suggested already, I am missing something important: the directness of Dhamma as it pertains to our life now. If we miss out on this we will never be able to realize the truth. Sukin: I usually characterize such writings as ‘philosophical’, and yes I get bored easily now reading them. I remember liking such writings before, but not long after I came to DSG that I began to see a difference between your own writings and those by such authors as Bhikkhu Bodhi, who at the time was my favorite. I think these other writings are encouraging of tanha papanca if not sometimes also ditthi. One ‘enjoys’ reading and thinking over the various ideas, but they do not have the effect of pointing one to the present moment, unlike your own writings. Appreciating the present moment and the reality / concept distinction is I believe a most important first step to the development of understanding of the Dhamma. Without this, practice / satipatthana won’t even be appreciated in principle, let alone encouraged to arise. Thanks for expressing your appreciation Nina. Metta, Sukin #94003 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone sukinderpal Hi Howard, (Ken and Nina), > ============= > Quoted text: > < less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world > of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that > these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but > inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is > only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially > dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of > tightly interwoven relations.>> > > Howard: > I suspect that it is material like this that will trouble a number of > folks here. But it has particular appeal to me, most especially the first > paragraph. > > S: Without your own comment I would have read the above text (I’ve yet > to read the original post by Connie), to be talking about an instance of > the five khandhas arising by conditions. Therefore I wouldn’t have seen > anything wrong with it, let alone feel troubled by it. But perhaps you > have read more by the same author and hence understand him to be saying > something different? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I read into it exactly what (I think) you say - that every sankhata > dhamma owes it's existence, such as that is, to other conditioned dhammas which > are it's sole conditions for existence. To me, this means that nothing exists > in-and-of-itself, but only contingently/dependently. Is this how you see it? > Or do you understand the matter differently? > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don’t know. I have never read anyone to have denied “conditioned existence” when talking about sankhata dhammas. On the other hand I’ve seen it suggested to the effect that since a sankhata dhamma does not “exist” independently, one then can’t make a statement about it or know it for what it is. Therefore thinking about dhammas as we do here on DSG is to be making ‘little selves’ out of paramattha dhammas. This I don’t get. It is my guess that perhaps the problem lies in that one takes into account only the fact of a particular dhamma being ‘conditioned’ by other dhammas, forgetting that each of these dhammas act as conditions for the other dhammas in various ways as well, while doing their part in performing particular functions during that one instance of arising. In other words dhammas are both conditioned as well as ‘conditioning’, and that they each have characteristic, function, manifestation and cause. The focus on rupa, citta and cetasikas, should not therefore imo, be seen as encouraging of ‘self view’. On the contrary, because ignorance and wrong view are themselves cetasikas which when arisen functions to conceal and misinterpret characteristic and functions of all dhammas, seeing citta, cetasika and rupa by their characteristic is the only way that panna accumulates and develops. Besides, knowing in principle that dhammas are conditioned variously, rather than taking this to mean that individual dhammas can’t be known, does this not point to the fact that they can and must be known? After all, to know that a moment is conditioned is to know a particular dhamma being so and also how and by what, don’t you think? ================ > In the above text, the author talks about the importance of both > analysis and synthesis which I agree with. However I see this as being > about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves > around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned variously and > NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored. > Rather, because you see limitation in the approach, I’ll suggest that > this is due exactly to your own bringing in an idea re: > ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, not only unnecessary, but in fact > misleading. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What is the misdirection? Sukin: Knowing a dhamma by its characteristic is to know that it is conditioned. Is this not enough? There is never any idea at the moment about ‘interrelationship among phenomena’. This it seems to me is a product of ‘thinking’ and is projected on to the experience of some concept. And not only is this discouraging of the understanding of characteristic of dhammas, it is failure at making the concept / reality distinction as well. In fact it appears to be an instance of giving life to some form of “whole” even when referring to the ‘parts’…… =============== > No aspect of the Teachings lies outside of what is experienced through > the five senses and the mind. The latter, includes moments when thinking > about ‘human beings’. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Whatever we think about is a mere phantom in two senses: 1) When there > is thinking, there is ONLY thinking and not some real existent that is object > of thought, and, more strongly, 2) Everything that is thought of as an > existent, i.e., anything mentally separated off and describable by speech, is > merely conventional and differs from the experiential reality that is independent > of thought. > All the things we talk about on DSG are conventional phenomena only. The > so-called paramattha dhammas are the simplest of these. As soon as we open > our mouths, or put pen to paper, or type on a keyboard we deal with > conventions. There is no other way. > Incidentally, in his post Ken questioned there ONLY being a web of > relations. But I don't think Karunadasa asserted that - nor do I. There are no > relations except among things related. The two categories are mutually > dependent. (For me, though, I hasten to add, as soon as one speaks of things and of > relations among things, that is all a matter of convention and differs from > what is independent of thought.) Sukin: The concept of hardness is not the experience of hardness for sure. But hardness experienced by a ‘self’ is one thing and hardness as known by panna is another. Much of the Teachings is made up of concepts encouraging the development of understanding and knowing clearly just this distinction. One problem with the idea, ‘web of relations’ is not convention, but an underlying idea which seems suggestive of some kind of function given to a ‘whole’. ============= > It is good enough to know that this concept is > object of akusala dhammas such as attachment and aversion on one hand, > and can also on the other be object of kusala dhammas such as metta, > karuna, dana etc. More than this it is good to know that the development > of wisdom is about knowing “characteristic� of dhammas which reveals > also the fact of their being conditioned, such as seeing, sound, > feeling, attachment, thinking and so on, an instance of the latter for > example is when the concept of human being appears. > > It seems to me Howard, that your idea about ‘interrelationships among > phenomena’ is something that is forced upon the perception of human > being etc. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > ??? I'm not clear as to your point. Sukin: In this post you limit yourself to reference only about a moment of experience. But what I had in mind then was your making a distinction between concepts such as tree and say a flying earthworm. Also you often refer to Indra’s Net. These two together gave me the impression that you saw beyond momentary conditioned dhammas to suggest some kind of existence / relationship beyond this. =============== > After all, it is not anything that is experienced through the > five sense doors and when coming to the mind door, it is only thought > about after the perception of human being. What necessitates this? > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm still not clearly understanding you. Are you saying that relations > among things are real and their reality forces themselves upon our perception, > or that they are real but known only through thinking, or they are unreal, > or what exactly? Please excuse me, but I'm unsure of what you are asserting. Sukin: :-) No, I was suggesting that it was you who saw beyond the need to know presently arisen dhammas. I thought that you felt a need to see such as ‘human beings’ not existing in isolation. But I must have misunderstood you. And no, I don’t believe in the power of ‘thinking’, to add to anything that might be understood directly through the five sense doors and the mind. Metta, Sukin #94004 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:52 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Dear James, I have read your post. I'd like to clarify few things: 1st) Metta bhavana here means active meditation on loving-kindness with what some may call 'samatha' elements. Not day to day sort of thing that may happen -> 2nd) If someone angry comes at you, then it is good to generate internal metta to that person. But one shouldn't at first, start with sending metta at an 'angry', disagreeable person. What does it mean 'at first'? I take it to mean before one can enter 3rd or even 4th Jhana. When you can enter that, then you are no longer a beginner. If you can enter that taking an angry person, than that is good! Almost perfection of metta-bhavana meditation. RE dead people: When you develop metta toward living person, then when you meet that person you are more likely to be not-angry with him/her. You don't get this with a dead person that you will not meet. With best wishes, #94005 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 12/29/2008 11:12:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: #94000 ============================ The paragraph of interest to me is the following: ____________________ This situation has to be considered in the context of the logical apparatus used by the Abhidhammikas in defining the dhammas. This involves three main kinds of definition. The first is called agency definition (kattu-sadhana) because it attributes agency to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta (consciousness) as "that which thinks" (cinteti ti cittat).25 The second is called instrumental definition (karana-sadhana) because it attributes instrumentality to the thing to be defined. Such, for example, is the definition of citta as "that through which one thinks" (cinteti ti etena cittat).26 The third is called definition by nature (bhava-sadhana) whereby the abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus. Such, for example, is the definition," The mere act of thinking itself is citta (cintanamattam eva cittat)." --------------------------------- It is that last formulation, "The mere act of thinking itself is citta (cintanamattam eva cittat)," that is my preference and that, in fact, I have repeatedly emphasized (ad nauseum, probably, to Nina! ;-) I have continually objected to viewing cittas as things that are conscious or as vehicles for being conscious, and emphasized instead that they are exactly occurrences of knowing (or acts of consciousness). [As an aside, I believe that 'thinking' is an inappropriate replacement in Karunadasa's writing for 'being conscious' or for 'knowing'.] With metta, Howard #94006 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 12/29/2008 11:50:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: Hi Howard, (Ken and Nina), > ============= > Quoted text: > < less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world > of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that > these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but > inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is > only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially > dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of > tightly interwoven relations.>> > > Howard: > I suspect that it is material like this that will trouble a number of > folks here. But it has particular appeal to me, most especially the first > paragraph. > > S: Without your own comment I would have read the above text (I’ve yet > to read the original post by Connie), to be talking about an instance of > the five khandhas arising by conditions. Therefore I wouldn’t have seen > anything wrong with it, let alone feel troubled by it. But perhaps you > have read more by the same author and hence understand him to be saying > something different? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I read into it exactly what (I think) you say - that every sankhata > dhamma owes it's existence, such as that is, to other conditioned dhammas which > are it's sole conditions for existence. To me, this means that nothing exists > in-and-of-itself, but only contingently/dependently. Is this how you see it? > Or do you understand the matter differently? > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don’t know. I have never read anyone to have denied “conditioned existence” when talking about sankhata dhammas. On the other hand I’ve seen it suggested to the effect that since a sankhata dhamma does not “exist” independently, one then can’t make a statement about it or know it for what it is. Therefore thinking about dhammas as we do here on DSG is to be making ‘little selves’ out of paramattha dhammas. This I don’t get. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That "little selves" business is another matter. It pertains to speaking of cittas as actors or knowers rather than as knowings. It is a matter of agency terminology that I object to. --------------------------------------------- It is my guess that perhaps the problem lies in that one takes into account only the fact of a particular dhamma being ‘conditioned’ by other dhammas, forgetting that each of these dhammas act as conditions for the other dhammas in various ways as well, while doing their part in performing particular functions during that one instance of arising. In other words dhammas are both conditioned as well as ‘conditioning’, and that they each have characteristic, function, manifestation and cause. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course - all conditioned phenomena also serve as conditions. As for the terminology of " characteristic, function, manifestation," this holds no interest for me. --------------------------------------------- The focus on rupa, citta and cetasikas, should not therefore imo, be seen as encouraging of ‘self view’. -------------------------------------------- Howard: It needn't. It depends on how these are thought of. -------------------------------------------- On the contrary, because ignorance and wrong view are themselves cetasikas which when arisen functions to conceal and misinterpret characteristic and functions of all dhammas, seeing citta, cetasika and rupa by their characteristic is the only way that panna accumulates and develops. Besides, knowing in principle that dhammas are conditioned variously, rather than taking this to mean that individual dhammas can’t be known, does this not point to the fact that they can and must be known? After all, to know that a moment is conditioned is to know a particular dhamma being so and also how and by what, don’t you think? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course we know and distinguish dhammas. Hardness, warmth, sights, sounds, anger etc all are known. --------------------------------------------- ================ > In the above text, the author talks about the importance of both > analysis and synthesis which I agree with. However I see this as being > about a moment of experience. The fact that much discussion revolves > around ‘paramattha dhammas’ and that these are conditioned variously and > NOW, should show that no crucial aspect of Dhamma is being ignored. > Rather, because you see limitation in the approach, I’ll suggest that > this is due exactly to your own bringing in an idea re: > ‘interrelationships among phenomena’, not only unnecessary, but in fact > misleading. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What is the misdirection? Sukin: Knowing a dhamma by its characteristic is to know that it is conditioned. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, Sukin. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. ------------------------------------------- Is this not enough? There is never any idea at the moment about ‘interrelationship among phenomena’. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I fail to see how one can affirm conditionality and deny interrelationship in the same breath! ---------------------------------------- This it seems to me is a product of ‘thinking’ and is projected on to the experience of some concept. And not only is this discouraging of the understanding of characteristic of dhammas, it is failure at making the concept / reality distinction as well. In fact it appears to be an instance of giving life to some form of “whole” even when referring to the ‘parts’…… =============== > No aspect of the Teachings lies outside of what is experienced through > the five senses and the mind. The latter, includes moments when thinking > about ‘human beings’. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Whatever we think about is a mere phantom in two senses: 1) When there > is thinking, there is ONLY thinking and not some real existent that is object > of thought, and, more strongly, 2) Everything that is thought of as an > existent, i.e., anything mentally separated off and describable by speech, is > merely conventional and differs from the experiential reality that is independent > of thought. > All the things we talk about on DSG are conventional phenomena only. The > so-called paramattha dhammas are the simplest of these. As soon as we open > our mouths, or put pen to paper, or type on a keyboard we deal with > conventions. There is no other way. > Incidentally, in his post Ken questioned there ONLY being a web of > relations. But I don't think Karunadasa asserted that - nor do I. There are no > relations except among things related. The two categories are mutually > dependent. (For me, though, I hasten to add, as soon as one speaks of things and of > relations among things, that is all a matter of convention and differs from > what is independent of thought.) Sukin: The concept of hardness is not the experience of hardness for sure. But hardness experienced by a ‘self’ is one thing and hardness as known by panna is another. -------------------------------------------- Howard: What first-hand experience do you have of pa~n~na? And thinking, BTW, needn't involve any sense of self. The Buddha was certainly quite good at thinking. Hardness as such, named hardness thought of as some thing, is just concept. Hardness, as such, is conventional. During a period of time that we experience what we call "hardness," there is constant change in what is observed, and it is only due to similarity of experience that we think of it all as the same thing, naming it all as "hardness." ---------------------------------------------- Much of the Teachings is made up of concepts encouraging the development of understanding and knowing clearly just this distinction. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That is why the theoretical teachings are just pointers. Reality isn't known through thinking - only conventional reality is. (That's good enough for most purposes, though not for awakening.) ----------------------------------------------- One problem with the idea, ‘web of relations’ is not convention, but an underlying idea which seems suggestive of some kind of function given to a ‘whole’. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Actually, systems of phenomena do exhibit behavior that the individual phenomena cannot exhibit. --------------------------------------------- ============= > It is good enough to know that this concept is > object of akusala dhammas such as attachment and aversion on one hand, > and can also on the other be object of kusala dhammas such as metta, > karuna, dana etc. More than this it is good to know that the development > of wisdom is about knowing “characteristic� of dhammas which reveals > also the fact of their being conditioned, such as seeing, sound, > feeling, attachment, thinking and so on, an instance of the latter for > example is when the concept of human being appears. > > It seems to me Howard, that your idea about ‘interrelationships among > phenomena’ is something that is forced upon the perception of human > being etc. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > ??? I'm not clear as to your point. Sukin: In this post you limit yourself to reference only about a moment of experience. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do? ---------------------------------------------------- But what I had in mind then was your making a distinction between concepts such as tree and say a flying earthworm. Also you often refer to Indra’s Net. These two together gave me the impression that you saw beyond momentary conditioned dhammas to suggest some kind of existence / relationship beyond this. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sorry - I'm still not following you. ------------------------------------------------ =============== > After all, it is not anything that is experienced through the > five sense doors and when coming to the mind door, it is only thought > about after the perception of human being. What necessitates this? > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm still not clearly understanding you. Are you saying that relations > among things are real and their reality forces themselves upon our perception, > or that they are real but known only through thinking, or they are unreal, > or what exactly? Please excuse me, but I'm unsure of what you are asserting. Sukin: :-) No, I was suggesting that it was you who saw beyond the need to know presently arisen dhammas. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you've got me there! I sure do see that need! -------------------------------------------------- I thought that you felt a need to see such as ‘human beings’ not existing in isolation. But I must have misunderstood you. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall discussing anything along those lines in our conversation, but certainly human beings (no quotes needed) do not exist in isolation. You and I are human beings, are we not, and are we not interacting? You're not a devotee of solipsism, are you? ------------------------------------------------- And no, I don’t believe in the power of ‘thinking’, to add to anything that might be understood directly through the five sense doors and the mind. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The power of thinking made possible the computer that you are using! ------------------------------------------------ Metta, Sukin ================================ With metta, Howard #94007 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:14 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Dear James, J: Robert, by your blunt question I am assuming that you think I don't have much metta because of the tone of my posts (i.e. "offended you"). Well, you can join Connie in that also. As she said, I am like "mountains of metta from a molehill of dosa" :-). Granted, I am not extremely proficient at metta meditation, but I try my best. And, believe it or not, I do care about people and want them to be happy and free from suffering. connie: Feel free to take anything personally, but if we're going to run around thinking "my metta, my dosa", it's really not all that far to "i'm so good, i'm so bad", which I don't think serves well. However, as I recall, it was (Howard is amazed at X, you at Y and my Z was) along the lines that what amazes me is how mountains of metta can come from molehills of dosa - that kusala can be conditioned by prior akusala - someone decides the answer to being bored (here a molehill) is to visit friends, say... not that there would necessarily be true metta arising (and probably nowhere near mountains of it), but "anything's possible, given the right conditions". Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. I like it so much, I sorta stole his name for internet use. All in how we think about things, I guess, but are they really 'Buddhist'? Are they mentioned in the Pali Canon? peace, connie #94008 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: how to view the self glenjohnann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > Op 28-dec-2008, om 11:04 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from those > > that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape > > from those that sanna remembers isn't. > -------- > N: I do not quite get what you ask here about selecting, but I shall > try to add a few more points on seeing and paying attention to shape > and form. > Seeing just sees anything that impinges on the eyesense; we can call > it colour or visible object. > In Pali also the word va.n.na is used, appearance. When there is > paying attention to shape and form, contours of something, (you call > it selecting ?) these are moments different from seeing. > Seeing does not think or define anything, but I think you know this > already. Seeing does not select visible object, there are the proper > conditions for seeing to see visible object: visible object impinges > on the eyesense so that there are conditions for seeing, and kamma > produces seeing, it is vipaakacitta as you know. > > When reading a text, it seems that there is seeing and at the same > time recognizing the letters and their meaning. But seeing does not > know: this is A, this is B, seeing cannot read, it can only see. > Cittas arising in a mind-door process recognize the letters and > translate them into meaning. Actually we are 'translating' all day > long. It seems that we see figures of persons, contours of tables, > but seeing does not 'translate", it merely experiences whatever has > impinged on the eyesense. > Hearing hears sounds, and it seems that at once their meaning is > known. These are other cittas, different from just hearing. > The characteristic of seeing cannot be understood when we still take > it for my seeing. We do, even when we do not think: it is I who is > seeing. It is not yet understood as a mere dhamma, arisen because of > its own conditions. Gradually we can understand that whatever arises > is a mere dhamma and also sati is a mere dhamma. Sati and seeing and > all other dhammas arise without us expecting them, they are > unforeseeable. When sati begins to be aware, only then, understanding > can be developed of whatever reality appears at that moment, be it > seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. But if we are trying to > find out what seeing is or doubting about it, seeing cannot be known > as it is. When we have doubts, there is not seeing, and how could > seeing then be understood? When sati arises and is aware, no names > are given, just characteristics appear and there is no selection of > any object. > Does this answer your question on selecting and sa~n~naa? > > Nina. > #94010 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and James) - In a message dated 12/29/2008 2:14:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. I like it so much, I sorta stole his name for internet use. All in how we think about things, I guess, but are they really 'Buddhist'? Are they mentioned in the Pali Canon? ========================= Nor are rosary beads mentioned in the Gospels! :-) Whatever physical events help to steady and calm the mind without introducing additional harmful effect are to the good, as I see it. With metta, Howard *Avarana #94011 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nichiconn Dear Howard, H: It is that last formulation, "The mere act of thinking itself is citta (cintanamattam eva cittat)," that is my preference and that, in fact, I have repeatedly emphasized (ad nauseum, probably, to Nina! ;-) I have continually objected to viewing cittas as things that are conscious or as vehicles for being conscious, and emphasized instead that they are exactly occurrences of knowing (or acts of consciousness). [As an aside, I believe that 'thinking' is an inappropriate replacement in Karunadasa's writing for 'being conscious' or for 'knowing'.] c: I guess we'll always struggle with striving for precision in our speech, especially when we're trying to use conventional terms for unconventional thought. I think Karanudasa's pretty careful about he formulates things and find it not so important whether or not I agree or can read it different ways, but more to question my own view/limited understanding of whatever topic. What's helpful to one seems utter heresy to another but 'different strokes' or 'various approaches to a single explanation' depending on the different folks. Anyway, he just covers quite a few of the stumbling blocks (or stonewalls?) / controversies and overall, which of course includes my own slant / take on what i'm reading, K does a pretty good job of answering the objections. Like the thing about pointing out constellations - same sky whether we see them not. Just easier to talk if we have a little shared vocabulary and don't have to keep stopping to more or less make up new words all the time. lol - my old dogmatic's about to start howling, so I'll leave it here. peace, connie #94012 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: visible object. Was:how to view the self nilovg Dear Ann (and Alberto), you posted this but I am interested in what you have to add. It is such a delicate subject and hard to explain. I remember Kh Sujin always answering the Q. what is visible object, how far does it extend, in this way: "It is just whatever appears through the eyesense, that is seen." That was all. Words may confuse, too much thinking may also confuse the matter. One person prefers this word, another one another word, but after all it can only be known through direct awareness and understanding. The more words we use, the more confusion. Personally I find shape and form confusing for visible object, but if there is right understanding we can call it anything. Some people call it light. Nina. Op 29-dec-2008, om 20:31 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > Dear Alberto, > > Op 28-dec-2008, om 11:04 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > > > > > I don't understand why not selecting a particular colour from > those > > > that sanna remembers is ok, while not selecting a particular shape > > > from those that sanna remembers isn't. #94013 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Hi Howard, I do not have a nausea so easily, don't worry. We all need patience. Nina. Op 29-dec-2008, om 21:01 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > that is my preference and that, in fact, I have repeatedly > emphasized (ad nauseum, probably, to Nina! ;-) #94014 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie, Op 29-dec-2008, om 21:01 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Anyway, he just covers quite a few of the stumbling blocks (or > stonewalls?) / controversies ------ N: Yes, that is the usefulness of all these extracts. We also understand better when people express views where they are coming from. Nina. #94015 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Robert, 2008/12/28 Robert Epstein : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > Even though to my way of seeing this would not be a form of self- > reference; rather a clarification that there is no self to reference; > still, it doesn't seem necessary that one who has realized that there > is no separate self would have to do linguistic tricks in order to > prove it, or that they would fall back into self by making a > conventional reference. I refer to movie characters while watching > the film and both I and my friend understand that we are merely > watching a movie and that the people we refer to are just characters > in the story who 'aren't really there.' Why can't this > psychophysical organism, aware of what is taking place, refer to the > nonexistence of a supposed character in the "story of life" who > happens to be confused with their given identity? > Well, you cannot have a supposed character that is confused with their supposed identity. If there is no character there, they can't be confused, can they? But to first identify an individual, and then deny it's individuality and identity after the fact, is hardly insightful. Would you think the following fictitious sutta quote would be anything but pure farce. In Herman's grove (which isn't really there). Buddha: Sariputta, I am not here, and neither are you. Sariputta: Yes, Lord. Buddha: And Ananda, watch where you are going, you are just about to bump into Sariputta. Sariputta: Thanks, Lord. Buddha: Not you, Sariputta, I said Ananda. Sariputta: But Lord, you said ...... Buddha: Never mind. Deep is my dhamma, and I teach it to no-one. Cheers Herman #94016 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott and Robert, 2008/12/30 Scott : > Dear James, > > Scott: I believe the context of these instructions to be in relation > to the development of concentration, and in particular, the > cultivation of jhaana. I think that the ease with which the > development of jhaana is to be effected is much underestimated by most > jhaana devotees. In this case, and as with the kasinas, it is to be > remembered that the 'person' as 'meditation subject' is a concept and > the concern then becomes the impediments to the development of > concentration to access and absorption - akusala which arises. > While I certainly agree with you about the connection between metta and jhana, I see no connection between that and the material you quote. Surely you would agree that "meditation subjects" do not have the slightest mischance befalling them? Clearly, Ven Buddhagosa is instructing to identify specific and real individuals, persons if you will. What those in favour of this method need to reconcile is how this is not the promoting of self-view. Cheers Herman #94017 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison egberdina Hi James, 2008/12/27 buddhatrue : > Hi All, > > > Most people have a very hard time with the first Noble Truth because > they don't want to admit that life is a prison. That would be > considered too pessimistic and scary. But, the real freedom begins > to happen when we stop pretending that we aren't in prison. When we > accept that we are in prison, for life, then we stop trying to run > away. I very much agree. We are all doing time! The end of our sentence is the end of time. As you eloquently say below: > No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught > that "Life is suffering". Human life (or deva life, etc.) no matter > how you slice it, is suffering. It is a prison. You cannot say > that when you take away clinging that human life isn't suffering > anymore, because that is the end of human life. Clinging, > suffering, and human life are all rolled up into one. We are > trapped in a prison and no amount of decorating the bars or singing > songs or staring at sunsets is going to change that. Yes, exactly. Nor will reciting mantras about concepts and realities change the fact that that is what one is doing with their time. >Only the > stopping of the ignorance about our lifelong prison sentence is > going to free us from the prison. And freeing us from prison means > the end of our human life, or any type of individual life. Nice one, James. Cheers Herman #94018 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "While I certainly agree with you about the connection between metta and jhana, I see no connection between that and the material you quote..." Scott: The section in question is found in Part II Concentration (Samaadhi). There is talk of 'access' and 'absorption' - sounds like jhaana to me. As I noted, I'm interested in considering patience and mettaa, not jhaana necessarily. H: "...Surely you would agree that 'meditation subjects' do not have the slightest mischance befalling them? Scott: I'm sorry, this isn't clear - 'mischance?' And 'befalling' whom? H: "...Clearly, Ven Buddhagosa is instructing to identify specific and real individuals, persons if you will. What those in favour of this method need to reconcile is how this is not the promoting of self-view." Scott: I'm not confused about this. There are no 'real individuals.' 'Individuals' or 'persons' are as much concept as kasinas. And yes, the instructions seem to indicate the use of 'real individuals' - perhaps those one deals with daily. I believe that the development of mettaa is the main concern, the concept which is object. But, in the case of these instructions, apparently some concepts are less satisfactory than others. Stay tuned... Sincerely, Scott. #94019 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear James, > > Sorry: > > Me: "...And I'd suggest that sati-sampa~n~naa is the final arbitrator > in this regard -" > > Scott: That should be 'sati-sampaja~n~naa.' Thank god you cleared that up!! ;-)) As to your other post, I don't have much to respond because I don't view people as "concepts" (using the traditional definition of that word). So, I don't really have much to say. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Metta, James #94020 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ============================= > In looking over the article > _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html_ (http://ww > w.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html) , it does seem to me that the approach to metta meditation that, > incidentally, has been widely adopted, does differ from what is said in the > suttas, James: Exactly!! And I don't know why anyone would adopt those directions to metta meditation because they don't work! I know through personal experience. I tried to follow those instructions and, after some time, realized that it is ridiculous to do so. I once read an article about a woman at a meditation retreat who spent the whole three months trying to follow the first step- radiate metta toward herself. She never quite felt like she got it right (that it lead to concentration). The instructions don't work! with the suttas getting no more specific than distinguishing classes > of people, geographical directions, etc, and this without any particular > order. Of course, perhaps there is a sutta somewhere that is different, and that > gives an ordered list of types of people one knows to whom to direct thoughts > of metta - I just haven't seen one. James: I haven't seen one either so I don't trust those Vism. instructions. > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James #94021 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:20 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > > What does it mean 'at first'? > > I take it to mean before one can enter 3rd or even 4th Jhana. > When you can enter that, then you are no longer a beginner. If you > can enter that taking an angry person, than that is good! Almost > perfection of metta-bhavana meditation. > James: Where did you get this information? Have you personally been able to enter 1-3 jhanas radiating metta toward a specific person? Metta, James #94022 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. James: Well, I don't know who Nichikan is but it is obvious that he is a pompous ass. I like it so much, I sorta stole his name for internet use. James: You should pick your heroes more carefully. All in how we think about things, I guess, but are they really 'Buddhist'? Are they mentioned in the Pali Canon? James: I don't know (they could be somewhere is some commentary somewhere). All I know is that they help to focus my mind on a task which is very vague and nebulous- radiating metta to everyone everywhere- but which is very worthwhile. > > peace, > connie Metta, James #94023 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:39 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi James, > James: Where did you get this information? In AN 8.63 Sankhitta sutta, Metta can bring one to 4th Jhana. ""Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html >Have you personally been able to enter 1-3 jhanas radiating metta >toward a specific person? Yes. With best wishes, #94026 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi James, > "buddhatrue" wrote: > > James: Exactly!! And I don't know why anyone would adopt those > directions to metta meditation because they don't work! They did for me. >I know through personal experience. I tried to follow those >instructions and, after some time, realized that it is ridiculous >to do so. I once read an article about a woman at a meditation >retreat who spent the whole three months trying to follow the first >step- radiate metta toward herself. She never quite felt like she >got it right (that it lead to concentration). The instructions >don't work! > They worked for me. The difficult is the self-guilt, self-punishment complexes present in western people. If one has "I hate myself, I deserve punishment" sort of attitude or underlying belief, then it can be very hard to forgive oneself and send metta to oneself. Sometimes it is much harder to send metta to oneself than to others. With Metta, #94027 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/29/2008 7:28:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. James: Well, I don't know who Nichikan is but it is obvious that he is a pompous ass. ============================ I would imagine his "ignorant common mortals" was just his translation of 'puthujjana,' which is more commonly rendered by "run-of-the-mill person." With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94028 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:23 pm Subject: Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn hi again James, c: Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. James: Well, I don't know who Nichikan is but it is obvious that he is a pompous ass. c: Sorry, must be another eye of the beholder thing - or I'm just oblivious. Nevertheless, he was actually advocating their use. No big deal; really just responding because I'd forgotten to say it was pretty cool of you to leave your books in Egypt... reckon those friends have their own ideas on what it means to value the three jewels more than life itself. peace, connie #94029 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi James, > > > James: Where did you get this information? > > > In AN 8.63 Sankhitta sutta, Metta can bring one to 4th Jhana. > ""Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- > release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a > basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well- undertaken.' > That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this > concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with > directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed > thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no > directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied > by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of > enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html James: This isn't related to the Vism.'s instructions of "at first". This relates to metta directed toward all beings leading to jhana. Alex, I am still waiting for that sutta which specifies a specific person for the development of the Brahma viharas. > > > >Have you personally been able to enter 1-3 jhanas radiating metta > >toward a specific person? > > Yes. James: Who did you use and how did you do it? > > With best wishes, > Metta, James #94030 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > The difficult is the self-guilt, self-punishment complexes present in > western people. If one has "I hate myself, I deserve punishment" sort > of attitude or underlying belief, then it can be very hard to forgive > oneself and send metta to oneself. > > Sometimes it is much harder to send metta to oneself than to others. James: I don't think that is the problem, I think the problem is what self is sending metta and what self is the recepient? I don't see how that exercise could lead to jhana because the whole exercise is paradoxical. It is like trying to see your own face without a mirror, it will only make you cross-eyed! :-) Sure, you can think "May I be happy; may I be free from suffering, etc." But, what is that object "I"? What do you picture when you think "I"? Are you supposed to picture your body, your mind, your thoughts? There is no "I"! So, I find the whole attempt to send metta to oneself as a perplexing and frustrating exercise. Metta, James #94031 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:49 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi James, > "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > > > Hi James, > > > > > James: Where did you get this information? > > > > > > In AN 8.63 Sankhitta sutta, Metta can bring one to 4th Jhana. > > ""Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- > > release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as > a > > basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well- > undertaken.' > > That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this > > concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration > with > > directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no > directed > > thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no > > directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it > accompanied > > by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense > of > > enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html > > James: This isn't related to the Vism.'s instructions of "at > first". This relates to metta directed toward all beings leading to > jhana. Alex, I am still waiting for that sutta which specifies a > specific person for the development of the Brahma viharas. Starting with one person may be helpful preliminary step for some, in order to personalize the sending of Metta. In any case one eventually needs to focus on the feeling of metta and gain absorbtion that way. > > > > > > >Have you personally been able to enter 1-3 jhanas radiating metta > > >toward a specific person? > > > > Yes. > > James: Who did you use and how did you do it? A venerable monk. First I visualize a loving & caring situation to generate the loving kindness, then internal verbalization, then focus on sending metta to oneself, then focus on sending metta to others and then the focus on the feeling itself. "to others" may include one person you respect very much, then neutral, then enemy. Or it may be sending in 4-6 directions, or to all. The more universal sweep of metta the better of course. With best wishes, #94032 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Connie (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > James: Well, I don't know who Nichikan is but it is obvious that he is a pompous ass. > > c: Sorry, must be another eye of the beholder thing - or I'm just oblivious. Nevertheless, he was actually advocating their use. James: Hmmm...I guess that quote is a little out of context. I took offense to the phrase "ignorant common mortal". The texts use the phrase "ignorant, run-of-the-mill" person, but that is meant to describe someone not following the Buddha's path. I would not describe someone training for stream-entry as a "ignorant common mortal", but that's just me I guess. > > No big deal; really just responding because I'd forgotten to say it was pretty cool of you to leave your books in Egypt... reckon those friends have their own ideas on what it means to value the three jewels more than life itself. > James: The Nikayas were donated to the library of Futures American School in Cairo Egypt. So, Egyptian high school students can read the Buddha's word for years to come. > peace, > connie > Metta, James #94033 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi James and all interested, > "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > James: I don't think that is the problem, I think the problem is > what self is sending metta and what self is the recepient? The problem is that you are trying to reify self that exists or not and shift the question into existence or non-existence. Just let the impersonal process unfold that generates good will for "oneself", meaning this namarupa and for other nama-rupas. > I don't see how that exercise could lead to jhana because the whole >exercise is paradoxical. It is like trying to see your own face >without a > mirror, it will only make you cross-eyed! :-) > > Sure, you can think "May I be happy; may I be free from suffering, > etc." But, what is that object "I"? What do you picture when you > think "I"? Are you supposed to picture your body, your mind, your > thoughts? There is no "I"! So, I find the whole attempt to send > metta to oneself as a perplexing and frustrating exercise. > > Metta, > James Metta isn't a noun, it isn't an object. It is 'ethical' quality of intention. Just like you can't ship "goodness" in a container, there is no physical thing transferred. You are generating the feeling and the habit of loving kindness. Furthermore for absorption you use the formless feeling itself, not the words, not the concepts, not the images of oneself or others. And of course you do not ask during the meditation: "who is sending and who is receiving" This isn't buying & selling! With best wishes, #94034 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Metta isn't a noun, it isn't an object. It is 'ethical' quality of > intention. Just like you can't ship "goodness" in a container, there > is no physical thing transferred. > > You are generating the feeling and the habit of loving kindness. > Furthermore for absorption you use the formless feeling itself, not > the words, not the concepts, not the images of oneself or others. > > And of course you do not ask during the meditation: "who is sending > and who is receiving" This isn't buying & selling! James: I guess that you and I view metta in very different ways. The Buddha taught metta as a means of protection and to purify the mind of ill will. We hate those or harbor ill will toward those who threaten us in some way. We fear for our safety and physical protection (and social protection) so we hate those who threaten that. This is a natural tendency of the mind. The Buddha taught metta so that his monks wouldn't be hurt by fire, swords, or poison, or snakes, or anything else. In that way, they don't need to feel threatened. When they don't feel threatened in any way, the mind is purified of ill-will. (The Buddha didn't teach metta meditation just because it is "a nice thing to do".) No one feels threatened by themself. No one really fears that they will kill themselves unexpectedly. The Buddha even said that we all hold ourselves most dear. So, I see no purpose, usefulness, or effectiveness of sending metta to oneself. Metta, James #94035 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:26 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn hold the presses, radiation guys! What's it mean to "radiate" or "send" metta? Is there a technical term for it? I think, James, we agree that if metta arises within myself, it's already there & there's no point to "sending" it to myself. Beyond that, I'm lost here... back on the "learn the meditation subject" page. thanks, connie #94036 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > It would be interesting to prove your point by successfully sending > > lovingkindness to the authors of the instructions that offend you. > > > > That would prove difficult as there are no authors of instructions > which "offend me". Just because I disagree with something that > doesn't mean it "offends me". Hi James. My point was a little more specific and a little less personal than you may have surmised by my "bluntness." I just thought I'd jump in and give you a particular challenge within your own logic and see what your response would be. I hope you will still take up the challenge. I am not speculating on whether you have a lot or a little metta; just saying that you seemed angry and discontented with the teachings on gradual practice of metta. My point was that those teachings, by what I have read in this thread, are meant to be pragmatic and allow a monk or other person to "work with" metta rather than hold it as an abstract ideal. Sure, it would be great to feel only lovingkindness towards everyone, but what if you find feelings of hatred arising when you contemplate a particular person? Do you give up the whole idea? Keep banging your head against the wall? Retreat to a more general sense of metta? For a beginner it may be important to experience metta at all and then spread out from there, so if he were to start with someone who is not unlikeable but to whom one does not have an attachment, isn't that a good place to start? Why not? If one can develop a concrete state of metta towards a living object and then "work the muscle" of metta to spread outwards to others, that is a good practice, isn't it? The reason I challenged you so bluntly was that I hoped you would look directly at the practical situation of your own view: Can you experience metta towards those with whom you disagree? You seemed to be agitated and were railing against these teachings. So if you were to say "Oh I guess that's a big challenge - maybe the teachers had some insight into how hard this is" that might be one response. Or you might say: "I see your point, but I still think it is best to just hold the thought of radiating metta to all beings and not worry about this or that person, or one's own personal feelings to the contrary," or you might say: "I have no problem feeling spiritual love towards those teachers - I just disagree with their teaching" that would be another response. I was just interested in having you take a look at it, since you seemed to provide a practical example of what you were talking about. Hope that clarifies. Your practice of sending metta to all beings as you work with your beads seems like a viable meditation practice for developing a universal sense of metta. I am curious: what is the relationship of this practice to the feelings of agitation, anger, frustration, disagreement, aversion and other negative feelings that may arise towards specific living beings? Does this contradict your practice? Do you have a way of interacting with these arisings when they occur, or is it somehow quite separate from your understanding of developing metta towards all beings? You also say that it is better to follow the Buddha's original instructions. Could you post a link or a quote regarding this so that I can take a look at how those instructions were worded? I would appreciate this. And is the practice with the mala prayer beads included in Buddha's original instructions? Best, Robert ============================= #94037 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner ajahnjose MyDear Alex, those words that you mention about westeners of guilt, self punishment and so on are typical Christian teachings, I was a Catholic for 50 years and I know that constantly they make me feel guilty of any action. I am a Buddhist Monk, live now in a Hospice waiting to die soon, I hope, but remember the Christians have COMMANDMENTS, WE BUDDHIST HAVE PRECEPTS, so follow what is good for you and the teachings of Buddha according to your concience. Metta. signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Tue, 12/30/08, Alex wrote: >I know through personal experience. I tried to follow those >instructions and, after some time, realized that it is ridiculous >to do so. I once read an article about a woman at a meditation >retreat who spent the whole three months trying to follow the first >step- radiate metta toward herself. She never quite felt like she >got it right (that it lead to concentration) . The instructions >don't work! > They worked for me. The difficult is the self-guilt, self-punishment complexes present in western people. If one has "I hate myself, I deserve punishment" sort of attitude or underlying belief, then it can be very hard to forgive oneself and send metta to oneself. Sometimes it is much harder to send metta to oneself than to others. #94038 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:53 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > 2008/12/28 Robert Epstein : > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > > wrote: > > > > Even though to my way of seeing this would not be a form of self- > > reference; rather a clarification that there is no self to reference; > > still, it doesn't seem necessary that one who has realized that there > > is no separate self would have to do linguistic tricks in order to > > prove it, or that they would fall back into self by making a > > conventional reference. I refer to movie characters while watching > > the film and both I and my friend understand that we are merely > > watching a movie and that the people we refer to are just characters > > in the story who 'aren't really there.' Why can't this > > psychophysical organism, aware of what is taking place, refer to the > > nonexistence of a supposed character in the "story of life" who > > happens to be confused with their given identity? > > > > Well, you cannot have a supposed character that is confused with their > supposed identity. If there is no character there, they can't be > confused, can they? But to first identify an individual, and then deny > it's individuality and identity after the fact, is hardly insightful. > Would you think the following fictitious sutta quote would be anything > but pure farce. > > In Herman's grove (which isn't really there). > > Buddha: Sariputta, I am not here, and neither are you. > > Sariputta: Yes, Lord. > > Buddha: And Ananda, watch where you are going, you are just about to > bump into Sariputta. > > Sariputta: Thanks, Lord. > > Buddha: Not you, Sariputta, I said Ananda. > > Sariputta: But Lord, you said ...... > > Buddha: Never mind. Deep is my dhamma, and I teach it to no-one. > > > Cheers > > > Herman Hi Herman, Your fun sutta illustrates the reason I said that it is a mistake to worry too much about conventions and literalisms. The fact that one says "I" in reference to the organism with which their experience is associated says little one way or the other about their identification with the kandhas involved. They may easily use this "I" as a mere convention, while an egoic person on the other hand might hide their egoic attachment by using fancy language that never mentions a word involving entity. While it may be worthwhile to think and speak in terms that do not refer to a particular "I" seen as a separate entity associated with a particular bodymind, it would mainly be an exercise in awareness and not in itself a ridding of self. On the other hand, an awakened person, such as the Buddha, refers to themselves all the time, and even advertises that they are "beyond attachment to form," etc. How would the Buddha get any followers if he didn't make this claim? So I'm not sure if I understand your objection. I gave you my wonderful metaphor of referring to characters in the movie theatre, and you said that the fictititious character could not refer to himself as a fiction. Either the character exists or does not. He cannot be identified only to then be denied existence. But the actor can. He can say "You know that character that I play? He doesn't really exist, he just appears in a script or in a film." You seem to deny the dual nature of our lives in samsara - we actually do appear to be individuals leading lives with volition, etc., while at the same time it is possible to develop the insight that this is not actual. It doesn't mean that the appearance of such suddenly vanishes, only that is revealed as a fictitious existence. So we can in fact say, "See this individual over there - there is an organism and kandhas and such, but there is actually no one at home there. It is empty, just a bunch of cause-and-effect events, one after the other." In doing so, the apparent person does not disappear; but their status is changed, so we can refer to them, and say, as I think the Buddha might, "They only appear as such; their identity is only a matter of name and form." The Buddha can speak about himself and say that he is not attached to the illusion of entity, etc. He refers to persons being free of attachment to various forms all the time, or being mired by them and experiencing sufferings. By doing so, is he making the fiction of self a reality? Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = = #94039 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi James, > > 2008/12/27 buddhatrue : > > Hi All, > > > > > > Most people have a very hard time with the first Noble Truth because > > they don't want to admit that life is a prison. That would be > > considered too pessimistic and scary. But, the real freedom begins > > to happen when we stop pretending that we aren't in prison. When we > > accept that we are in prison, for life, then we stop trying to run > > away. > > I very much agree. We are all doing time! The end of our sentence is > the end of time. As you eloquently say below: > > > > No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught > > that "Life is suffering". Human life (or deva life, etc.) no matter > > how you slice it, is suffering. It is a prison. You cannot say > > that when you take away clinging that human life isn't suffering > > anymore, because that is the end of human life. Clinging, > > suffering, and human life are all rolled up into one. We are > > trapped in a prison and no amount of decorating the bars or singing > > songs or staring at sunsets is going to change that. > > Yes, exactly. Nor will reciting mantras about concepts and realities > change the fact that that is what one is doing with their time. > > >Only the > > stopping of the ignorance about our lifelong prison sentence is > > going to free us from the prison. And freeing us from prison means > > the end of our human life, or any type of individual life. > > Nice one, James. > > > Cheers > > > Herman Given this absolute view of life as a prison, how does one account for moments of kusala, sati, vipassana, etc., and how does one account for the life of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, who are clearly released from all clinging, yet continue to run around and teach, in the Buddha's case for around 40 years? Was he still suffering as he taught? Most make a distinction between the physical sufferings of old age, disease and death that attend the physical existence and the suffering intended by the Buddha, which is that caused by clinging and aversion, as well as the ignorance that cause them. If you are saying that one can only be free of the latter type of suffering by entering parinibbana and ending human life completely, you are denying any distinction between nibbana, which is complete freedom while still alive, and parinibbana, the final form of nibbana in which form itself is relinquished. In fact, are you not denying the possibility of nibbana altogether? Too extreme, I would say, and annihilationist in nature, which Buddha warned against. To say there is no possibility of liberation while still living a human life, is make nibbana dependent on annihilation. It is not the middle way. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94040 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > ============================= > > In looking over the article > > > _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html_ > (http://ww > > w.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html) , it > does seem to me that the approach to metta meditation that, > > incidentally, has been widely adopted, does differ from what is > said in the > > suttas, > > James: Exactly!! And I don't know why anyone would adopt those > directions to metta meditation because they don't work! I know > through personal experience. I tried to follow those instructions > and, after some time, realized that it is ridiculous to do so. I > once read an article about a woman at a meditation retreat who spent > the whole three months trying to follow the first step- radiate > metta toward herself. She never quite felt like she got it right > (that it lead to concentration). The instructions don't work! > > with the suttas getting no more specific than distinguishing > classes > > of people, geographical directions, etc, and this without any > particular > > order. Of course, perhaps there is a sutta somewhere that is > different, and that > > gives an ordered list of types of people one knows to whom to > direct thoughts > > of metta - I just haven't seen one. > > James: I haven't seen one either so I don't trust those Vism. > instructions. > > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > Metta, > James > I am not a big fan of taking the commentaries over the direct teachings of the Buddha; however I am also not a fan of throwing out a set of instructions over a couple of anecdotal experiences, or to have them dismissed in haste. A commentary is meant to be a more detailed exploration of the intention of the original and it can be subject to scrutiny and criticism, but it would have to be a little more rigorous than the above. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94041 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:13 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > >Have you personally been able to enter 1-3 jhanas radiating metta > >toward a specific person? > > Yes. > > With best wishes, Hi Alex. If you don't mind, could you give a bit of an outline of how you developed your ability to enter the jhanas and go to the deeper ones. It is a subject I am very interested in at the moment and a close personal account would be very helpful for understanding this. In other words, were there specific practices or stages you went through that led from one step to the next, or a more general meditative regimen, such as samatha meditation, that led there naturally over time? Another question, which may be adding too much to this, but is related, would be, the relation between jhana and vipassana. Do you think that the meditation that leads to vipassana is of a different - more active - nature, eg, cultivating sati, than that leading to jhana, or is it from within jhana that vipassana is generated? Thanks, Robert = = = = = = = = = #94042 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 12/29/2008 7:28:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > Just so happens I've got a few sets of beads, too. One of my > favourite quotes about them: "The prayer beads are the Buddhist > implement which helps the ignorant common mortals advance in their > Buddhist practice." - Nichikan. > > James: Well, I don't know who Nichikan is but it is obvious that he > is a pompous ass. > ============================ > I would imagine his "ignorant common mortals" was just his translation > of 'puthujjana,' which is more commonly rendered by "run-of-the-mill person." > > With metta, > Howard On the other hand, if we don't like being referred to as "ignorant common mortals" perhaps we underestimate the difficulty of the path. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94043 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > > > > The difficult is the self-guilt, self-punishment complexes present > in > > western people. If one has "I hate myself, I deserve punishment" > sort > > of attitude or underlying belief, then it can be very hard to > forgive > > oneself and send metta to oneself. > > > > Sometimes it is much harder to send metta to oneself than to > others. > > James: I don't think that is the problem, I think the problem is > what self is sending metta and what self is the recepient? I don't > see how that exercise could lead to jhana because the whole exercise > is paradoxical. It is like trying to see your own face without a > mirror, it will only make you cross-eyed! :-) > > Sure, you can think "May I be happy; may I be free from suffering, > etc." But, what is that object "I"? What do you picture when you > think "I"? Are you supposed to picture your body, your mind, your > thoughts? There is no "I"! So, I find the whole attempt to send > metta to oneself as a perplexing and frustrating exercise. > > Metta, > James I think you may be intellectualizing the exercise. In the anapanasati sutta the Buddha advocates breathing with "full awareness of the entire body" as one of the many breathing awarenesses that he suggests. I would think that sending metta to "One's entire organism, including body and mind" as if from outside of oneself, would not only send nice metta-waves into your own kandhic operational system, but would also detach you from "being" that which you are sending the metta to, in other words, that which you ordinarily regard as yourself. By thinking that you must send the metta to an "I" in order to send it to yourself, it may be your own pre-existing "I" concept that is getting in the way. If you were just to try it without conceptualizing it, you might experience what it is like. Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #94044 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > hold the presses, radiation guys! > > What's it mean to "radiate" or "send" metta? Is there a technical term for it? James: I don't know. The suttas tell a story of the Buddha being charged by a wild elephant. He "radiated" or "sent" metta to the elephant and that made the elephant stop. I don't know the technical term for that. Maybe Nina would know. > I think, James, we agree that if metta arises within myself, it's already there & there's no point to "sending" it to myself. James: Exactly! Beyond that, I'm lost here... back on the "learn the meditation subject" page. > > thanks, > connie Metta, James #94045 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Ajahn Jose and Alex, So sorry to hear about your situation and your pain. May you accept death mindfully and without confusion. I have some further comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > MyDear Alex, those words that you mention about westeners of guilt, self punishment and so on are typical Christian teachings, I was a Catholic for 50 years and I know that constantly they make me feel guilty of any action. I am a Buddhist Monk, live now in a Hospice waiting to die soon, I hope, but remember the Christians have COMMANDMENTS, WE BUDDHIST HAVE PRECEPTS, so follow what is good for you and the teachings of Buddha according to your concience. Metta. > I don't believe that there is really any such thing as "self hate". We all hold ourselves dear. What passes for "self hate" are mental proliferations of a negative nature causing stress and anxiety. For Westerners, it does often go back to guilt caused by religious upbringing. It is also that Westerners tend to focus on the individual while Asians and Middle Easterners focus on the group. Asians and Middle Easterns also have negative mental proliferations but they are mainly concerned with group participation, group identity, and "losing face" for the family or group. Metta, James #94046 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:25 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Robert, This is a bit redundant. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > The reason I challenged you so bluntly was that I hoped you would look > directly at the practical situation of your own view: Can you > experience metta towards those with whom you disagree? You seemed to > be agitated and were railing against these teachings. James: I already told you that I am not agitated and I was not railing against the teachings in the Vism.. I just state things in a matter-of-fact way. After all, I am writing a post to a Buddhist group, not a Hallmark card. :-). Metta, James #94047 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/12/30 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > H: "...Surely you would agree that 'meditation subjects' do not have > the slightest mischance befalling them? > > Scott: I'm sorry, this isn't clear - 'mischance?' And 'befalling' whom? > I was quoting you. "5. What is the reason why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the others? To put an antipathetic person in a dear one's place is fatiguing. To put a very dearly loved friend in a neutral person's place is fatiguing; and if the slightest mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping. To put a neutral person in a respected one's or a dear one's place is fatiguing. Anger springs up in him if he recollects a hostile person. That is why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the rest." I will stay tuned. Cheers Herman #94048 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:28 pm Subject: HAPPY 2009 ajahnjose My Dear Friends, I wish you all a peacefull, healthy and safe 2009 for you and your families. My prayers are my gift to you, Here is a picture of my extended family, as a Monk I should not have attachment but I do love my dogs, specially at this sad moments of my life. Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose #94049 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:32 pm Subject: The 4 Personalities! bhikkhu0 Friends: Some 4-fold Characterizations of Personalities! There are these 4 types of Human Personality: 1: One possessed by Greed, Desire, and Lust... 2: One possessed by Hate, Anger, and Aversion... 3: One possessed by Confusion, Doubt & Ignorance... 4: One possessed by Pride, Conceit, and Arrogance... 1: One who having learned little, yet does not act upon it... 2: One who having learned little, does indeed act upon it... 3: One who having learned much, yet does not act upon it... 4: One who having learned much, does indeed act upon it... 1: One drifting along with the stream, driven by craving... 2: One going against the stream of ordinary convention... 3: One remaining stuck in the middle of deep stagnation... 4: One who having reached the far shore dwells in fruition... 1: One who attains calm, but not insight... 2: One who attains insight, but not calm... 3: One who attains neither calm, nor insight... 4: One who attains both calm and insight... ... Source: The 4th Abhi-Dhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Paùùatti. 25-27 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net The 4 Personalities! #94050 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Robert, I don't know if you are addressing me or Herman (or both), but I will respond: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Given this absolute view of life as a prison, how does one account for > moments of kusala, sati, vipassana, etc., James: The prison is clinging and those are moments of non- clinging. There are degrees. and how does one account for > the life of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, who are clearly released from all > clinging, yet continue to run around and teach, in the Buddha's case > for around 40 years? Was he still suffering as he taught? James: This is a very controversial issue which we have discussed on DSG a lot. The short answer: The Buddha would experience physical suffering but not mental suffering. > > Most make a distinction between the physical sufferings of old age, > disease and death that attend the physical existence and the suffering > intended by the Buddha, which is that caused by clinging and aversion, > as well as the ignorance that cause them. James: Whoever makes this distincition makes a mistake. Physical suffering and mental suffering are both suffering. If you are saying that one > can only be free of the latter type of suffering by entering > parinibbana and ending human life completely, you are denying any > distinction between nibbana, which is complete freedom while still > alive, and parinibbana, the final form of nibbana in which form itself > is relinquished. James: I don't quite follow you. Nibbana is release with residue; paranibbana is release without residue. In fact, are you not denying the possibility of > nibbana altogether? James: No, I am not. > > Too extreme, I would say, and annihilationist in nature, which Buddha > warned against. To say there is no possibility of liberation while > still living a human life, is make nibbana dependent on annihilation. > It is not the middle way. James: I don't follow your logic here. > > Robert > > = = = = = = = = = = > Metta, James #94051 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Connie, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > hold the presses, radiation guys! > > > > What's it mean to "radiate" or "send" metta? Is there a technical > term for it? > > James: I don't know. The suttas tell a story of the Buddha being > charged by a wild elephant. He "radiated" or "sent" metta to the > elephant and that made the elephant stop. I don't know the technical > term for that. Maybe Nina would know. > > > > I think, James, we agree that if metta arises within myself, it's > already there & there's no point to "sending" it to myself. > > James: Exactly! I think somewhere in here is floating around a self-concept that is not quite clarified. Is there a "self" to either fill up with metta or to send metta to? Is there an "other" to send metta to from "oneself?" If one is sending or radiating metta, what is it that is doing that, or more mechanically, how is it taking place? I would say that even if you are feeling metta, it still does not hurt to include "yourself" in those to whom you are sending metta. If you accept the provisional existence of sentient beings, as Buddha did, such that they need to have their suffering alleviated, then oneself may as well be included in the flow of metta. For instance, are all your kandhas, resolved, quiesced, at peace? Do they not need to have metta "radiated" to them as much as any other kandhas? By separating out yourself, as if you were already someone and already doing something and therefore not needing what is needed by all suffering kandhas, you create a greater sense of separation and self-hood, not a lesser one. If you did not stand in the position of being "onself" you would naturally include "yourself" in the flow of metta along with all other sentient beings. Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself." It may be pointed out that the difficulty in loving others is often that oneself is full of negative forces that need to be quiesced, harmonized, resolved, by love, not by being ignored. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94052 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ajahn Jose and Alex, > > So sorry to hear about your situation and your pain. May you accept > death mindfully and without confusion. I have some further comments: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose > wrote: > > > > MyDear Alex, those words that you mention about westeners of > guilt, self punishment and so on are typical Christian teachings, I > was a Catholic for 50 years and I know that constantly they make me > feel guilty of any action. I am a Buddhist Monk, live now in a > Hospice waiting to die soon, I hope, but remember the Christians > have COMMANDMENTS, WE BUDDHIST HAVE PRECEPTS, so follow what is good > for you and the teachings of Buddha according to your concience. > Metta. > > > > I don't believe that there is really any such thing as "self hate". > We all hold ourselves dear. What passes for "self hate" are mental > proliferations of a negative nature causing stress and anxiety. For > Westerners, it does often go back to guilt caused by religious > upbringing. It is also that Westerners tend to focus on the > individual while Asians and Middle Easterners focus on the group. > Asians and Middle Easterns also have negative mental proliferations > but they are mainly concerned with group participation, group > identity, and "losing face" for the family or group. > > Metta, > James Whatever one may want to call it, the negativity within must be addressed and dealt with. It represents delusory disturbance against the grain of the path. To ignore it would be self-defeating. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94053 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > This is a bit redundant. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > The reason I challenged you so bluntly was that I hoped you would > look > > directly at the practical situation of your own view: Can you > > experience metta towards those with whom you disagree? You seemed > to > > be agitated and were railing against these teachings. > > James: I already told you that I am not agitated and I was not > railing against the teachings in the Vism.. I just state things in > a matter-of-fact way. After all, I am writing a post to a Buddhist > group, not a Hallmark card. :-). > > Metta, > James The reason it is redundant is because I am not sure you have answered the question. I understand that you are saying you were not agitated and were not railing, although to me your written tone did not appear matter-of-fact, but appeared quite frustrated or agitated, or whatever you might like to call it. But my question is whether you are able to experience metta towards those writers while objecting to their instructions, and that you have not answered, as redundantly insistent as I may be. After all, since this is a Buddhist group and not a Hallmark card, I would love a direct answer to that question. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94054 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > I don't know if you are addressing me or Herman (or both), but I > will respond: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > > Given this absolute view of life as a prison, how does one account > for > > moments of kusala, sati, vipassana, etc., > > James: The prison is clinging and those are moments of non- > clinging. There are degrees. > > and how does one account for > > the life of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, who are clearly released from > all > > clinging, yet continue to run around and teach, in the Buddha's > case > > for around 40 years? Was he still suffering as he taught? > > James: This is a very controversial issue which we have discussed on > DSG a lot. The short answer: The Buddha would experience physical > suffering but not mental suffering. > > > > > Most make a distinction between the physical sufferings of old age, > > disease and death that attend the physical existence and the > suffering > > intended by the Buddha, which is that caused by clinging and > aversion, > > as well as the ignorance that cause them. > > James: Whoever makes this distincition makes a mistake. Physical > suffering and mental suffering are both suffering. > > If you are saying that one > > can only be free of the latter type of suffering by entering > > parinibbana and ending human life completely, you are denying any > > distinction between nibbana, which is complete freedom while still > > alive, and parinibbana, the final form of nibbana in which form > itself > > is relinquished. > > James: I don't quite follow you. Nibbana is release with residue; > paranibbana is release without residue. Thank you for that distinction. What is the residue that remains with Nibbana? > In fact, are you not denying the possibility of > > nibbana altogether? > > James: No, I am not. > > > > > Too extreme, I would say, and annihilationist in nature, which > Buddha > > warned against. To say there is no possibility of liberation while > > still living a human life, is make nibbana dependent on > annihilation. > > It is not the middle way. > > James: I don't follow your logic here. In the sense that Nibbana takes place while one is still living some semblance of the earthly life. Robert = = = = = = = = #94055 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Robert, 2008/12/30 Robert Epstein : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> This is a bit redundant. >> >> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" >> wrote: >> > >> > The reason I challenged you so bluntly was that I hoped you would >> look >> > directly at the practical situation of your own view: Can you >> > experience metta towards those with whom you disagree? You seemed >> to >> > be agitated and were railing against these teachings. >> >> James: I already told you that I am not agitated and I was not >> railing against the teachings in the Vism.. I just state things in >> a matter-of-fact way. After all, I am writing a post to a Buddhist >> group, not a Hallmark card. :-). >> >> Metta, >> James > > The reason it is redundant is because I am not sure you have answered > the question. I understand that you are saying you were not agitated > and were not railing, although to me your written tone did not appear > matter-of-fact, but appeared quite frustrated or agitated, or whatever > you might like to call it. But my question is whether you are able to > experience metta towards those writers while objecting to their > instructions, and that you have not answered, as redundantly insistent > as I may be. > > After all, since this is a Buddhist group and not a Hallmark card, I > would love a direct answer to that question. > I'm starting to think you are not actually the Robert I thought you were. Cheers Herman #94056 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:37 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > The reason it is redundant is because I am not sure you have answered > the question. I understand that you are saying you were not agitated > and were not railing, although to me your written tone did not appear > matter-of-fact, but appeared quite frustrated or agitated, or whatever > you might like to call it. But my question is whether you are able to > experience metta towards those writers while objecting to their > instructions, and that you have not answered, as redundantly insistent > as I may be. > > After all, since this is a Buddhist group and not a Hallmark card, I > would love a direct answer to that question. Oh, for pete's sakes, I did answer that question! I don't feel any animosity toward whoever came up with those instructions so of course I feel metta toward them. I already told you, I practice sending metta to all being everywhere, so logically that includes whoever came up with those instructions. I can even send metta to you, Robert, even though you won't stop badgering me! :-) Metta, James #94057 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Tue, 30/12/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >I'm starting to think you are not actually the Robert I thought you were. .... S: Is anyone who or what we think? Doesn't it come back to those variegated painting cittas again? Metta, Sarah ======== #94058 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "I was quoting you...'and if the slightest mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping...'" Scott: Sorry, I was slow on the uptake (duh). These would all be stories, Herman. Stories about friends, and the mischances that befall them. These would essentially be about an attachment based on akusala dhammas. In other words, I take it to mean that to consider such a concept would condition the arising of akusala and hinder the whole 'exercise.' There is not, has not been, nor will there ever be a self or a person in reality. This is, as I understand it, a central aspect of the Dhamma. The paradox is that one still imagines one's self (a fiction) to interact in complex ways with these others (also fictional) and these volitional processes (actions) are influenced by akusala or kusala dhammas, since *these* are realities which arise and fall away in relation to imagining persons and relational situations, and these are the realities which are developed. Sincerely, Scott. #94059 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Thank you for that distinction. What is the residue that remains with > Nibbana? James: The kamma which has yet to expire. > In the sense that Nibbana takes place while one is still living some > semblance of the earthly life. James: Yes, nibbana takes place while one is still living the appearance of an earthly life. However, one who has achieved nibbana is not like a regular human being. You might want to read this article "Nibbana as Living Experience": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html > > Robert > Metta, James #94060 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Wed, 24/12/08, upasaka@... wrote: S:>>Just as the cittas and cetasikas we refer to as 'Sarah' or 'Alex' don't wish to be harmed, hurt or cheated, neither do any other (sets of) cittas and cetasikas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- >Howard: Ahhh! "(SETS of) cittas and cetasikas"!! ! [Emphasis mine] Watch it Sarah - you're getting dangerously close to speaking of aggregations of phenomena! ;-)) ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Uh ah...sounds dangerous ;-)) .... <....> >>S: Exactly! We're talking about the intentions and kamma. These are namas or dhatus, not people. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ >Howard: The sets of mental and physical phenomena acting in concert are, exactly, "persons." People are neither individual realities vaguely associated with certain namas and rupas, nor are they random grab bags of phenomena, nor are they nothing at all. They are sets of interrelated phenomena of a very specific sort. .... S: One citta at a time... .... >H: As for the dhammas comprising people, where we differ in our view of them is that you take them to be realities independent of convention, whereas I who consider nothing to remain "as is" for any time at all due to the constancy and seamlessness of change, view them as the simplest sort of *conventional* phenomena. For example: Suppose that during the passage of a brief span of time - say even a tiny fraction of a second, I feel warmth. Actually, what are experienced at any two points in time during that brief period are different in quality (and in relation to other phenomena) , and it is just a convention, due only to *similarity* of quality, to think of it all as "the same warmth". This is just identification by convention. To identify is "to make same". But that "same" is a fiction, and ONLY a convention. There is only "similar," and not "same." Mentally concocting separate, discrete, unchanging entities with identity (from the Latin 'idem et idem', meaning "same and same") is exactly what conceptualization and thought convention is all about. This is, of course, useful activity, necessary (even) for successfully navigating our way, but we should not be taken in by it. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: If you are saying that warmth experienced now is never the same as any other warmth, then I agree. It's just the same as saying each visible object experienced is never the same or each sound is never the same. I don't understand your first sentence in this para above. Of course, warmth or sound experienced are quite different from conventional notions and of course they arise and fall away instantly! Metta, Sarah p.s Jon & I are off to Fiji (a work trip for him at very short notice - actually, my Xmas gift to him yest!) on Thurs nite, so I'll be trying to keep replies brief 'til I get settled in the other end, after our very long trip. Also, apologies to anyone for even longer delays in responses. ======= #94061 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:00 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, now comes the second part of "The Problem of Time" chapter: 2. Planes of Time (p.99) It is now held that each series of events has its own time order, and it is difficult to relate the one to the other since there is no common time standard. - Sir James Jean, The Mysterious Universe From what was said in the last chapter it seems that the Buddhist teaching of the relativity of time is not limited merely to the statement that time is a relational concept, related to, and inseparable from, the events occurring in it. By inference we may assume that Buddhist philosophy also acknowledges different of time, though they are not mentioned as such. This puts the relativity of time on a still wider basis. Any phase or aspect of any life process has the inherent potentiality of an increase or decrese in the scale of its varying intensity, extending far beyond the horizon of the particular point of observation. Science has shown that there are sound and light waves beyond our perceptual range ascertainable by deduction or by experiment with an apparatus more sensitive than our human sensorium. In the same way we need not suppose that time is limited to the radius of the human time experience and that there is no increase or decrease in its intensity. There are certainly time planes below and above the range of average human consciousness, which may likewise be either inferrd by deductive methods or actually experienced in the "experimental situation" of meditative practise, in which the range and sensitivity of average consciousness may be greatly expanded. In Paali Buddhist literature we have found only two express references to different time planes, and these are extreme cases below and above the average time experience. The fact that they are extreme cases might be accidental and attributable to our still uncompleted survey of the scriptures from that point of view; or it can be explained by the fact that the differentiation of time levels is more evident in such extreme cases and cannot be neglected when the respective phenomena are investigated. These two cases are: (1) matter, and (2) the meditative attainment of cessation (nirodha-samaapatti). peace, connie #94062 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "6. Then, if he develops it specifically towards the opposite sex, lust inspired by that person springs up in him. An elder supported by a family was asked, it seems, by a friend's son, 'Venerable sir, towards whom should lovingkindness be developed?' The elder told him, 'Towards a person one loves.' He loved his own wife. Through developing loving kindness towards her he was fighting against the wall* all the night. That is why it should not be developed specifically towards the opposite sex." *1. "'Fighting against the wall': having undertaken the precepts of virtue and sat down on a seat in his room with the door locked, he was developing lovingkindness. Blinded by lust arisen under the cover of the lovingkindness, he wanted to go to his wife, and without noticing the door he beat on the wall in his desire to get out even by breaking the wall down' (Pm. 286). The Path of Purity. "Lust arises in him who develops it specifically towards a person of the opposite sex. Once a minister's son asked the Elder Kuluupaka, 'Sir, towards whom is love to be developed?' The Elder said: 'Towards a person one holds dear.' The minister's son had a dear wife. And he, developing love towards her, kept banging on the wall the whole night. Therefore love should not be developed specifically towards the opposite sex." Li.ngavisabhaage pana tameva aarabbha odhiso bhaaventassa raago uppajjati. A~n~nataro kira amaccaputto kuluupakatthera.m pucchi 'bhante, kassa mettaa bhaavetabbaa' ti? Thero 'piyapuggale' ti aaha. Tassa attano bhariyaa piyaa hoti. So tassaa metta.m bhaavento sabbaratti.m bhittiyuddhamakaasi. Tasmaa li.ngavisabhaage odhiso na bhaavetabbaa. Sincerely, Scott. #94063 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:14 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, the discussion on definitions by agency, instrument and nature continues: The first two kinds of definition, it is maintained, are provisional and as such are not valid from an ultimate point of view.28 This is because the attribution of agency and instrumentality invests a dhamma with a duality when it is actually a unitary and unique phenomenon. Such attribution also leads to the wrong assumption that a given dhamma is a substance with inherent qualities or an agent which performs some kind of action. Such definitions are said to be based on tentative attribution (samaropana)29 and thus are not ultimately valid.30 It is as a matter of convention (vohara), and for the sole purpose of facilitating the grasp of the idea to be conveyed,31 that a duality is assumed by the mind in defining the dhamma, which is actually devoid of such duality.32 Thus both agency and instrumental definitions are resorted to for the convenience of description, and as such they are not to be understood in their direct literal sense. On the other hand, what is called definition by nature (bhavasadhana) is the one that is admissible in an ultimate sense.33 This is because this type of definition brings into focus the real nature of a given dhamma without attributing agency or instrumentality to it, an attribution which creates the false notion that there is a duality within a unitary dhamma. It is in the context of these implications that the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own nature has to be understood. Clearly, this is a definition according to agency (kattu-sadhana), and hence its validity is provisional. From this definition, therefore, one cannot conclude that a given dhamma is a substantial bearer of its qualities or "own-nature." The duality between dhamma and sabhava is only an attribution made for the convenience of definition. For in actual fact both terms denote the same actuality. Hence it is categorically stated that apart from sabhava there is no distinct entity called a dhamma,34 and that the term sabhava signifies the mere fact of being a dhamma.35 If the dhamma has no function distinct from its sabhava,36 and if dhamma and sabhava denote the same thing,37 why is the dhamma invested with the function of bearing its own-nature? For this implies the recognition of an agency distinct from the dhamma. This, it is observed, is done not only to conform with the inclinations of those who are to be instructed,38 but also to impress upon us the fact that there is no agent behind the dhamma.39 The point being emphasized is that the dynamic world of sensory experience is not due to causes other than the self-same dhammas into which it is finally reduced. It is the inter-connection of the dhammas through causal relations that explains the variety and diversity of contingent existence and not some kind of transempirical reality which serves as their metaphysical ground. Nor is it due to the fiat of a Creator God40 because there is no Divine Creator over and above the flow of mental and material phenomena.41 Stated otherwise, the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own-nature means that any dhamma represents a distinct fact of empirical existence which is not shared by other dhammas. Hence sabhava is also defined as that which is not held in common by others (anannasadharana),42 as the nature peculiar to each dhamma (avenika-sabhava),43 and as the own-nature is not predicable of other dhammas (asadharana-sabhava).44 It is also observed that if the dhammas are said to have own-nature (saka-bhava = sabhava), this is only a tentative device to drive home the point that there is no other-nature (para-bhava) from which they emerge and to which they finally lapse.45 peace, connie #94064 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Concepts & Atta heresy sarahprocter... Hi Alex, S:>>However, the idea of 'pen' is not 'formed up' or 'conditioned' . It >is not sankhara khandha. A:> What about animals? They don't have any idea of a "pen". ... S: Ideas don't have to be in words. The 'variegated' cittas have ideas all the time. You see a small baby or even a kitten responding in one way to a pen and another way to a differnt object. They respond to different colours too, all by the nature of cittas and cetasikas. ... >The idea of the pen is not something that exists on its own. It requires a mind faculty properly functioning in an intelligent way to come up with the idea of a pen and recognize the idea whenever there is a basis for it (ex: certain rupa is present). .... S: Yes, exactly. Sanna (perception) marks and remembers what is seen and touched. It recognizes objects and the thinking cittas have ideas about what is seen and touched. .... A:> Same with lets say currently non-existent concepts that will exist only in the future. These concepts don't yet exist, but they will exist in the future. ... S: We can say that future cittas will think about different ideas or concepts. ... A:> This is another example of impermanence. Dear Sarah, are you claiming some extratemporal eternalism of concepts? If not, then you cannot bypass the not-yet existent concepts that will only exist in the future. ... S: Again in an absolute sense, a pen doesn't exist now, didn't exist before and won't exist in future. However, various rupas did, do and will arise and fall away. Various complex kinds of cittas will mark, remember and think about those rupas. ... A:> Are concepts "Dhamma"? If so, sabbe Dhamma anatta refutes constancy of concepts. .... S: Nothing at all can ever be atta. However, the impermanency of dhammas as in sabbe sankhara anicca does not refer to concepts. This doesn't make concepts constant. .... A:> Why? Because the whole reason and justification of Anatta is because something is impermanent, conditioned, (and thus unsatisfactory) and not a thing-in-itself (which would be eternal as it is not time dependent and unconditioned as it is not dependent on outside conditions). .... S: For 'something', I'd rather say conditioned dhammas, i.e the 5 khandhas, including all conditioned namas and all rupas. ... A:> Some people could take what you have said and say: "The real Atta is not 'formed' up or 'conditioned' . It is not sankhara khanda" ... S: "The real Atta" is a nonsensical idea. It's true that such an idea is not a sankhara dhamma, it is not a sankhara khandha. .... A:> How would you refute the above heretical view? .... S: I'd also ask you to read the Kathavatthu! (Start in U.P. with 'Kathavatthu'). Metta, Sarah ======== #94065 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member sarahprocter... Dear Phil M, Thank you so much for kindly sharing your intro and background details with us. Much appreciated by all, I'm sure:-). --- On Thu, 25/12/08, Philip Miller wrote: >Thank you sincerely for your welcoming message. I have seen all too many Groups all so self-absorbed in itself to take notice of newbies in their midst. .... S: I think it's like any community - if a newbie joins, one tries to make them feel welcome. I know I appreciate when I'm the newbie. .... >I am 63 years old and reside in central New Jersey, and I have been a spiritual seeker for too long. Oh, I had read books about Buddhism in the past, but it was like tossing mud against a wall - a little stuck but most fell off. Not long ago I had a serious life-threatening illness. During my recuperation I stumbled upon (are there really any coincidences? ?) some web sites of Buddhist content and found a spark had ignited a fire. ... S: That's great - the right medicine at the right time. You're Jon's 'twin' btw. It was actually during his recuperation from a rather serious illness and the kind welcome and 'family atmosphere' we'd received on a medical discussion board that inspired us to first think about starting this group for the most serious illness of then all - that of ignorance! ... P:> What appeals to me about Theravada is the centrality of the Pali Canon and its "simplicity. " I only wish there were a "teacher" nearby with whom I could learn. .... S: This reminds me of a discussion Scott (in 'outback' Canada) started a while back with regard to 'teacher'. We concluded, that as the Buddha reminded us in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta when he was dying, that 'The Dhamma', the teachings he left us, are 'the teacher'. It all comes back to this moment - 'wishing now', is just another kind of thinking, probably with attachment. It too can be known for what it is - a dhamma, not belonging to anyone. Thank you for joining us and I'm already appreciating the opportunity to learn from the points you raise. Metta, Sarah ======== #94066 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:18 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison sprlrt Hi James, Herman, Robert, all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: ... > No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught > that "Life is suffering". ... The 1st ariya sacca doesn't say life, it mentions birth, old age and death; it doesn't mention youth, for example, part of life too. It also mentions pain, sorrow etc. but it doesn't mention pleasures, for example, part of life too. It says that in short the 5 aggregates object of clinging, pancupadanakhandha, are dukkha, not life, the Buddha and other arahants had no clinging, no dukkha. Alberto #94067 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:14 am Subject: Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn dear radiation workers, c: What's it mean to "radiate" or "send" metta? Is there a technical term for it? James: I don't know. The suttas tell a story of the Buddha being charged by a wild elephant. He "radiated" or "sent" metta to the elephant and that made the elephant stop. I don't know the technical term for that. Maybe Nina would know. c: palikanon.com/english/pali_names/n/naalaagiri.htm Here, it's "an elephant of the royal stables" but "Just then, a woman, carrying a child, saw the elephant coming and fled, in her terror dropping the child at the Buddha's feet. As the elephant was about to attack the child, the Buddha spoke to him, suffusing him with all the love at his command, and, stretching out his right hand, he stroked the animal's forehead. Thrilling with joy at the touch, Naalaagiri sank on his knees before the Buddha, and the Buddha taught him the Dhamma. " > I think, James, we agree that if metta arises within myself, it's already there & there's no point to "sending" it to myself. James: Exactly! RobEp: I think somewhere in here is floating around a self-concept that is not quite clarified. Is there a "self" to either fill up with metta or to send metta to? Is there an "other" to send metta to from "oneself?" If one is sending or radiating metta, what is it that is doing that, or more mechanically, how is it taking place? c: I'm quite willing to accept that living beings are the object of metta. So, yes, how are we to understand the "travelling" of thought? Does my thinking actually arise in other people, that is, is it that metta 'goes out' or that the (mental) targets are 'brought in'? peace, connie #94068 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Children, Dhamma, Kamma upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/30/2008 7:59:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Wed, 24/12/08, upasaka@... wrote: S:>>Just as the cittas and cetasikas we refer to as 'Sarah' or 'Alex' don't wish to be harmed, hurt or cheated, neither do any other (sets of) cittas and cetasikas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- >Howard: Ahhh! "(SETS of) cittas and cetasikas"!! ! [Emphasis mine] Watch it Sarah - you're getting dangerously close to speaking of aggregations of phenomena! ;-)) ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Uh ah...sounds dangerous ;-)) .... <....> >>S: Exactly! We're talking about the intentions and kamma. These are namas or dhatus, not people. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ >Howard: The sets of mental and physical phenomena acting in concert are, exactly, "persons." People are neither individual realities vaguely associated with certain namas and rupas, nor are they random grab bags of phenomena, nor are they nothing at all. They are sets of interrelated phenomena of a very specific sort. .... S: One citta at a time... .... >H: As for the dhammas comprising people, where we differ in our view of them is that you take them to be realities independent of convention, whereas I who consider nothing to remain "as is" for any time at all due to the constancy and seamlessness of change, view them as the simplest sort of *conventional* phenomena. For example: Suppose that during the passage of a brief span of time - say even a tiny fraction of a second, I feel warmth. Actually, what are experienced at any two points in time during that brief period are different in quality (and in relation to other phenomena) , and it is just a convention, due only to *similarity* of quality, to think of it all as "the same warmth". This is just identification by convention. To identify is "to make same". But that "same" is a fiction, and ONLY a convention. There is only "similar," and not "same." Mentally concocting separate, discrete, unchanging entities with identity (from the Latin 'idem et idem', meaning "same and same") is exactly what conceptualization and thought convention is all about. This is, of course, useful activity, necessary (even) for successfully navigating our way, but we should not be taken in by it. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: If you are saying that warmth experienced now is never the same as any other warmth, then I agree. It's just the same as saying each visible object experienced is never the same or each sound is never the same. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I AM saying that, but I'm ALSO saying that to identify similar but non-identical qualities as "the same," namely warmth in this case, is a CONVENTION. The paragraph of mine that you quote and that I have copied above is about as good an effort as I can make in explaining my point about convention. The closest we can *actually* come to identifying anything at all by concept is "this"! --------------------------------------------------- I don't understand your first sentence in this para above. Of course, warmth or sound experienced are quite different from conventional notions and of course they arise and fall away instantly! ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I think you may be missing in part in what I am saying is the extent to which our thinking is involved in what you refer to as "realities". But I'm afraid I can't do better than the sentence that you have a problem understanding, ,along with the rest of the quoted paragraph. Sorry. :-) --------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah p.s Jon & I are off to Fiji (a work trip for him at very short notice - actually, my Xmas gift to him yest!) on Thurs nite, so I'll be trying to keep replies brief 'til I get settled in the other end, after our very long trip. Also, apologies to anyone for even longer delays in responses. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Have fun, Sarah - both of you. :-) =========================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94069 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi James and all interested, >"buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > James: I guess that you and I view metta in very different ways. And I am content to agree that we disagree. > The Buddha taught metta as a means of protection and to purify the > mind of ill will. Sure, and as a way to concentrate and liberate it. There are multiple levels of practice in Buddhism and in metta meditation: - metta for lowering anger - metta for rebirth in Brahma spheres - metta for high samadhi 3rd or 4th Jhana - metta + 4NT for Anagamiship and/or Arhatship. IMHO the 4th one is the best and it actually includes the above. Becoming an Anagami WILL remove, not just lower, anger. > We hate those or harbor ill will toward those who > threaten us in some way. We fear for our safety and physical > protection (and social protection) so we hate those who threaten > that. THis seems like a good reason to practice anatta-sanna and such. > No one feels threatened by themself. Didn't you hear this as well: "I am my own worst enemy" ? With best wishes, #94070 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:07 am Subject: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Help! As so often happens, I am struggling with a problem the solution to which is likely glaringly obvious to others. I am trying to work out the idea of the object of meditation in metta. I take it that in concentration meditation the object of meditation is the breath or abdominal movement. In walking meditation, the object of meditation is the movement of the feet. In mindfulness meditation the object of meditation is the predominant object-- be it thinking, hearing, or any other object at the six sense doors. But what is the object of meditation in loving-kindness meditation? I have gone over various writings that seem to address this issue: U. Pandita states in his book, The State of Mind Called Beautiful: "Loving-kindness arises easily and naturally whenever the mind takes as its object a dear person." Chanmyay Sayadaw says much the same thing on his website: "So to develop loving-kindness in you, you have to take a person or group of persons or all living beings as the object of Metta meditation: reflecting on the welfare of all these living beings by saying "May all living beings be happy, peaceful and free from animosity, free from distress, affliction… and so on." When I do metta meditation, I have a sense of the person to whom I direct my good wishes. I have the intention to wish them well that I act on by silently repeating the phrases with as much sincerity as I can muster. And then there is the feeling of loving-kindness itself that may or may not arise in the process. There seem to be at least three candidates for the object of meditation here-- person, intention-action, feelings of loving-kindness. In the other forms of meditation, I know what I should pay attention to (i.e., the object of meditation), but this seems a bit more complex. I assume that I am labouring under some confusion or several. Anyone willing to help me sort it out? with metta, Alan McAllister #94071 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:38 am Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Howard, Sukin, Howard: Of course - all conditioned phenomena also serve as conditions. As for the terminology of "characteristic, function, manifestation," this holds no interest for me. Of course we know and distinguish dhammas. Hardness, warmth, sights, sounds, anger etc all are known. ---------- c: This is another of those stonewalls for me... seems the distinction must be known by some means or another and i don't know what to call it if not something like "characteristic, function & manifestation". Can you help me out here, Howard? thank you, connie #94072 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:49 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi Robert, > "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Hi Alex. > In other words, were there specific practices or stages you went > through that led from one step to the next, or a more general > meditative regimen, such as samatha meditation, that led there > naturally over time? Practice daily, the morning being a very good time. Watch sila so as to avoid regrets and such. Try to keep in mind the meditation subject through the day. I did focus quite a bit on what you like to call "samatha" type of meditations so it has helped. > Another question, which may be adding too much to this, but is > related, would be, the relation between jhana and vipassana. Do you > think that the meditation that leads to vipassana is of a >different - more active - nature, eg, cultivating sati, than that >leading to jhana, There has to be sati, alertness and energy in the Jhana as well. Without them one could very quickly be overwhelmed with arisen hindrances and fall from Jhana. >or is it from within jhana that vipassana is generated? > > Thanks, > Robert Lets see MN64 sutta: "abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction*1)." http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.html Sounds like insight practice as well! Maybe the samatha & vipassana split is a later analytical scholastic elaboration of a path that is fluid and inclusive. It is funny that the sutta support for "Insight Knowledges" is found in Jhana suttas and the Venerable monk traditionally believed to teach Abhidhamma (Ven. Sariputta) did very heavy jhana work (see MN111 Anupada sutta). With best wishes, #94073 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Dear Bhante Jose, >Ajahn Jose wrote: > > MyDear Alex, those words that you mention about westeners of guilt, >self punishment and so on are typical Christian teachings, Exactly. Westerners brought in Christian culture have wrong tendencies of self guilt, self punishment, self loathing and so on. This is why it may be hard for them to send metta to themselves. >I was a Catholic for 50 years and I know that constantly they make >me feel guilty of any action. I am a Buddhist Monk, live now in a >Hospice waiting to die soon, I hope, but remember the Christians >have COMMANDMENTS, WE BUDDHIST HAVE PRECEPTS, so follow what is good >for you and the teachings of Buddha according to your concience. >Metta. > > signature > Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose I am sad to hear about your health. I hope that you recover and feel well. With best wishes, Alex #94074 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:58 am Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Dear Alan, The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. With best wishes, #94075 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Concepts & Atta heresy truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, > sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > S:>>However, the idea of 'pen' is not 'formed up' >or 'conditioned' . It > >is not sankhara khandha. > > A:> What about animals? They don't have any idea of a "pen". > ... > S: Ideas don't have to be in words. But they have to be in 'meanings' then. Animals do not understand the meaning of human made concepts. Even within the human kingdom not all concepts are understood by all. Concepts like language are fully conditioned. Please don't hold the wrong view of "unconditioned something". It is not far from belief in unconditioned self, or existence of "forms". > The 'variegated' cittas have ideas all the time. And this is why these ideas are conditioned. It is meaningless to talk about ideas outside of citta, cetasikas & rupa. All these are conditioned, and not self. > ... > >The idea of the pen is not something that exists on its own. It requires a mind faculty properly functioning in an intelligent way to come up with > the idea of a pen and recognize the idea whenever there is a basis > for it (ex: certain rupa is present). > .... > S: Yes, exactly. Sanna (perception) marks and remembers what is >seen and touched. It recognizes objects and the thinking cittas have >ideas about what is seen and touched. > .... This is why concepts are conditioned as they relate to samsara. > A:> Same with lets say currently non-existent concepts that will exist only in the future. These concepts don't yet exist, but they will exist in the future. > ... > S: We can say that future cittas will think about different ideas >or concepts. But the unthought thoughts do not exist. Un conceptualized ideas are not conceptualized ideas. Non-existent ideas are not existent ideas. > ... > A:> Are concepts "Dhamma"? If so, sabbe Dhamma anatta refutes constancy > of concepts. > .... > S: Nothing at all can ever be atta. What about Atta being beyond "any thing, any Dhamma" a 'smart' attavadins may speculate. > A:> Some people could take what you have said and say: > > "The real Atta is not 'formed' up or 'conditioned' . It is not > sankhara khanda" > ... > S: "The real Atta" is a nonsensical idea. Just like permanent and unconditioned concepts. First step in creating Atta is to consider something to be an independent thing in itself rather than a flowing impersonal process. With best wishes, #94076 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Alex: I am still a tad confused because the phrase "object of meditation" must be being used here in a different sense. Clearly to extend loving-kindness you must attend to the person or your sense of them. You must also attend to the phrases and the intention underlying them. If you are fortunate (or practiced) enough to have the feeling, then all is to the good, but one cannot attend to a feeling unless it is there. So, it would appear, the idea of "object of meditation" is not the same as in the other forms of meditation with which I am familiar. with metta, Alan On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Alex wrote: > The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness > (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. #94077 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Alan, First you generate metta through internal visualizations & good thoughts. Then you stop internal visualization & thinking. Then you Focus on the pleasant feeling only and make it your object of observation like the breath in anapanasati to which you come back. With best wishes, #94078 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Alex: This is beginning to make more sense to me. I suspected that there was some kind of developmental process involved. However, in anapanasati, you attend to the breath from the get-go, and only return to it if you have wandered off into internal visualization and thinking and such like. Regards, Alan #94079 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:30 am Subject: The object of meditation in metta meditation nichiconn Hi Alan, Alan: There seem to be at least three candidates for the object of meditation here-- person, intention-action, feelings of loving-kindness. Alex: The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. c: i suppose we have to distinguish between object as purpose and object as immediately present prop, support or tool enabling that divorcing of the heart-mind from hatred and it's marriage to patient forbearance. The Visuddhimagga gives that immediate focus as "living-sentient beings". Alan, you might like to check out the current Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner, which begins at #93721. peace, connie #94080 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:09 pm Subject: forerunners... nichiconn hey, Phil M, just a bit of commentarial material for you: Asl 68-69: 'Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind. And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind, Him evil follows as the wheel the ox. Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind. And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind, Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him. By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn: All all men own the sovereignty of mind.' 'Bhikkhu, through mental corruptions beings are corrupted; through mental purity beings are purifed. This mind, bhikkhus, is dazzling, and yet it is defiled by foreign corruptions.' '... Householder, when the mind is guarded ... malevolent ... not malevolent ... saturated with lust ... not saturated with lust ... then acts, words and thoughts are in a corresponding state.' Thus in dealing with worldly matters mind is the chief, mind is the principal, mind is the forerunner. Thus it should be understood, and further, that not only one or two of these Suttas, but all are to be taken collectively so that one may support the other. In asking questions on transcendental matters, one says not 'What contact have you acquired, what feeling, perception, or volition?' but 'Bhikkhu, what understanding have you acquired? - understanding of the first Path or the second or the third or the four?' laying stress on understanding as the chief and the principal. No moral states headed by understanding become degraded. But what is the purpose of understanding? 'Bhikkhus, in the Ariyan disciple endowed with understanding there are established faith which follows it, energy which follows it, and mindfulness and concentration which follow it.' These and other Suttas should be noted here (as pointing to wisdom or understanding as the principal faculty). Thus when we come to transcendental matters, understanding is the chief, the principal, the forerunner. peace, connie #94081 From: Philip Miller Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member pem218 Thank you, Sarah. I Thank you for bringing up the teaching in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. By "desiring a teacher," I mean a companion with whom to study, one on one, and someone more experienced. Then there is the question of "spiritual supervision." If the Dhamma is what makes it out to be at any moment, then Dhamma can be anything, which is also ultimately nothing. And if the Dhamma is nothing, is it an attachment to aspiring to live by it? As for "teacher," there is the "inner teacher" and the "outer teacher." Everyone possesses and "inner teacher," but an "outer teacher" helps manage spiritual growth. There is a Sufi saying, that a person who has himself for a spiritual master has Satan as his master. I hope I have not put anyone off by my statements! with Metta Phil M. #94082 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:30 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation scottduncan2 Dear Alan, Regarding: A: "...I am trying to work out the idea of the object of meditation in metta...But what is the object of meditation in loving-kindness meditation?" This is a complex question, and I'll provide some textual support but know nothing beyond that. One can get 'meditation' advice from everywhere today and it is my view that one must be very cautious. Right View must come first, even if this is in its tenderest form of a correct intellectual understanding - and this latter takes a lot of time to cultivate. First of all, 'meditation' is the English word of choice for the Paa.li 'bhaavana.' This Paa.li word, from 'bhaveti', has its own nuance and refers to mental development. (PTS PED: "Bhaaveti [Caus. of bhuu, bhavati] to beget, produce, increase, cultivate, develop.../Bhaavanaa (f.) [fr. bhaaveti, or fr. bhaava in meaning of bhaava...producing, dwelling on something, putting one's thoughts to, application, developing by means of thought or meditation, cultivation by mind, culture...) Unless one recalls that it is the nature of all dhammas not to be subject to control (anatta), and that in anything there is no doer, one can easily go astray when considering meditation. What is developed? Mettaa. What is mettaa? This is important, since in order to develop mettaa, metta must be known, and mettaa is only known by sati-sampaja~n~naa - by the combined function of the cetasika sati and the cetasika pa~n~naa - and by no other means. Mettaa is a cetasika the function of which is to love - in other terms, to avoid accusations of duality, the presence of mettaa is the non-dual presence of lovingkindness. When this mental factor is in ascendance, and only then, there is love and the object is the concept of 'another.' Viba"nga (The Book of Analysis, the Second book of the Abhidhamma; p. 358): "Therein what is loving-kindness? That which in beings is loving, act of loving-kindness, state of loving kindness, loving-kindness that is mental freedom (from illwill). This is called loving-kindness." Tattha katamaa mettaa? Yaa sattesu metti mettaayanaa mettaayitatta.m mettaacetovimutti â€" aya.m vuccati 'mettaa'. A: "...U. Pandita states...'Loving-kindness arises easily and naturally whenever the mind takes as its object a dear person.'" Scott: This rings false since the implication is that this is easy. Kusala is much rarer than akusala. I'd say some form of lobha arises much more readily and is more likely to be misunderstood by ignorance to be mettaa. Beware. A: "Chanmyay Sayadaw says much the same thing on his website: 'So to develop loving-kindness in you, you have to take a person or group of persons or all living beings as the object of Metta meditation: reflecting on the welfare of all these living beings by saying 'May all living beings be happy, peaceful and free from animosity, free from distress, affliction and so on.'" Scott: Unless mettaa arises and is known by sati-sampaja~n~naa, there is no guarantee at all that the above has anything to do with mettaa. Beware. A: "When I do metta meditation, I have a sense of the person to whom I direct my good wishes. I have the intention to wish them well that I act on by silently repeating the phrases with as much sincerity as I can muster. And then there is the feeling of loving-kindness itself that may or may not arise in the process. There seem to be at least three candidates for the object of meditation here-- person, intention-action, feelings of loving-kindness." Scott: That's enough from me. connie has answered you. Welcome to the list (I see you are a fellow Canadian, if nationalism matters). Please do join in a consideration of the Visuddhimagga material and discussions. I am currently using the forum to consider mettaa and khanti in more detail. Sincerely, Scott. #94083 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:41 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation scottduncan2 Dear Alan, "Viba"nga" should be Vibha"nga. Sorry. Sincerely, Scott. #94084 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/30/2008 12:39:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, Sukin, Howard: Of course - all conditioned phenomena also serve as conditions. As for the terminology of "characteristic, function, manifestation," this holds no interest for me. Of course we know and distinguish dhammas. Hardness, warmth, sights, sounds, anger etc all are known. ---------- c: This is another of those stonewalls for me... seems the distinction must be known by some means or another and i don't know what to call it if not something like "characteristic, function & manifestation". Can you help me out here, Howard? -------------------------------------------- Howard: My disinterest falls along the following lines: 1) I've not seen these categories defined in any way meaningful to me, 2) I don't feel the need for such notions as regards phenomena with which I am quite familiar as a matter of direct experience, and 3) The terms strike me as empty jargon. (Otherwise, though, I just love 'em! LOLOL!) --------------------------------------------- thank you, ------------------------------------------ Howard: Thank *you*, Connie. :-) ----------------------------------------- connie ========================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94085 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:12 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Dear Scott, Alan and all, >---, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alan, > Unless one recalls that it is the nature of all dhammas not to be > subject to control (anatta), and that in anything there is no doer, > one can easily go astray when considering meditation. "Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html Ven. Nanamoli uses the word "strives" rather than exertion. But both say the same thing. >What is mettaa? This is important, since in order to develop >mettaa, metta must be known, And the better way to know it is to develop it first! To "know it" through book study is like learning how to swim on dry land and studying books on swimology!! With best wishes, #94086 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/30/2008 12:49:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Lets see MN64 sutta: "abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction*1)." http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.html Sounds like insight practice as well! ================================= Alex, thank you so much for posting this. In the past, I've understood from MN 111 and MN 119 that vipassana bhavana occurs within the jhanas taught by the Buddha, but I didn't find the formulation there to be entirely unambiguous in that regard. But this sutta, in saying "established in it" (or "attained to it"), I find the Buddha ito be unambiguously clear with regard to this issue. So, I find this an excellent reference! With metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94087 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:29 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "'Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.'...Ven. Nanamoli uses the word 'strives' rather than exertion. But both say the same thing. And the better way to know it is to develop it first! To 'know it through book study is like learning how to swim on dry land and studying books on swimology!!" Scott: This is fine, Alex. I've just given a reply to a question. Please stick to your replies and I'll stick to mine. I'd hoped to have spared a newcomer the rush of controversialism offered by correspondents inimical to the aims of the list, as I would have preferred to have been spared myself as a newcome, but this is not to be. I am aware of your views in this matter, disagree with them completely because I find them ill-conceived and lacking in understanding, and prefer to leave it at that. Sincerely, Scott. #94088 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The object of meditation in metta meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alan, I'm glad to see you posting again....it must be a couple of years or so since we heard from you. (For others, Alan is another of the snow-bound Canadians, as I recall, from Bancroft,Ontario.) As I recall, you were quite interested in the Abhidhamma. --- On Wed, 31/12/08, Alan McAllister wrote: >I assume that I am labouring under some confusion or several. Anyone willing to help me sort it out? ... S: Even now as we write to each other here or think of our friends here or elsewhere, there can be friendly or unfriendly thoughts. When we step out and meet others in the street (at least here in Hong Kong) or at the shops/stores or wherever we go, we can be friendly, attentive and caring. When we help others at home, answer the telephone, assist an insect....anytime sentient beings are the object, there can be friendliness, loving-kindness. Welcome back! Metta, Sarah ======== #94089 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Scott, Alex, Connie et al: Actually, I have posted on this list before, but have done so infrequently. I have always found it helpful to sort out confusions that I have. The infrequency of my posting does not reflect the frequency of my confusion, however. The controversies that take place here tend to be lost on me so, Scott, do not be concerned. with metta, Alan #94090 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Sarah: Thank you for your welcome back. It is nice to be remembered. Yes, I am happily snow-bound at this very moment. with metta, Alan #94091 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi Robert, 2008/12/30 Robert Epstein : >> > > Hi Herman, > Your fun sutta illustrates the reason I said that it is a mistake to > worry too much about conventions and literalisms. The fact that one > says "I" in reference to the organism with which their experience is > associated There you have it in a nutshell. You acknowledge the locus of identity. says little one way or the other about their identification > with the kandhas involved. They may easily use this "I" as a mere > convention, while an egoic person on the other hand might hide their > egoic attachment by using fancy language that never mentions a word > involving entity. While it may be worthwhile to think and speak in > terms that do not refer to a particular "I" seen as a separate entity > associated with a particular bodymind, it would mainly be an exercise > in awareness and not in itself a ridding of self. > > On the other hand, an awakened person, such as the Buddha, refers to > themselves all the time, and even advertises that they are "beyond > attachment to form," etc. Still, the Buddha was the continuity of conditions as manifested in his body. And his body was his body by not being anyone else's body, or any other object for that matter, or the continuity of conditions that made them that body or object. How would the Buddha get any followers if > he didn't make this claim? So I'm not sure if I understand your > objection. I gave you my wonderful metaphor of referring to > characters in the movie theatre, and you said that the fictititious > character could not refer to himself as a fiction. Either the > character exists or does not. He cannot be identified only to then be > denied existence. But the actor can. He can say "You know that > character that I play? He doesn't really exist, he just appears in a > script or in a film." I agree that the actor can say that he was acting out a fiction, a make believe. But when the actor says that while acting out that fiction, he wasn't doing that, that is when to cal the men in white coats :-) You seem to deny the dual nature of our lives > in samsara - we actually do appear to be individuals leading lives > with volition, etc., while at the same time it is possible to develop > the insight that this is not actual. I do not think that it is the development of insight to deny kamma. It doesn't mean that the > appearance of such suddenly vanishes, only that is revealed as a > fictitious existence. So we can in fact say, "See this individual > over there - there is an organism and kandhas and such, but there is > actually no one at home there. It is empty, just a bunch of > cause-and-effect events, one after the other." Ahh, I see. I think we are having this discussion because you conflate identity and agency. I am only talking about self as in identity. You acknowledge the individual. That is identity. The word self is used by a human organism to refer to that self-same organism. That is self-reference. I accept that the organism lacks agency, that it is a bunch of cause-and-effects. But one organism is distinguished from another by having different causes and effects. The following from Nagasena vs King Milinda may settle the matter: 'Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you who are now grown up?' 'No. That child was one, I am another.' 'If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth 1? Is the mother of the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands or feet cut off 2?' 'Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ' **The Elder replied: 'I should say that I am the same person, now I am grown up, as I was when I was a tender tiny baby, flat on my back. For all these states are included in one by means of this body.'** In doing so, the > apparent person does not disappear; but their status is changed, so we > can refer to them, and say, as I think the Buddha might, "They only > appear as such; their identity is only a matter of name and form." > > The Buddha can speak about himself and say that he is not attached to > the illusion of entity, etc. He refers to persons being free of > attachment to various forms all the time, or being mired by them and > experiencing sufferings. By doing so, is he making the fiction of > self a reality? There is the illusion of agency, the self who is making its own causes. There is nothing illusory about the continuity of cause-and-effect by means of this body. More from Milinda: 'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp, would it burn the night through?' 'Yes, it might do so.' 'Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night, Sir, and in the second?' 'No.' 'Or the same that burns in the second watch and in the third?' 'No.' 'Then is there one lamp in the first watch, and another in the second, and another in the third?' 'No. The light comes from the same lamp all the night through.' **'Just so, O king, is the continuity of a person or thing maintained.** One comes into being, another passes away; and the rebirth is, as it were, simultaneous. Thus neither as the same nor as another does a man go on to the last phase of his self-consciousness .' Whether it is a lamp or a body or whatever, there is the continuity of conditions, and that, in another word, is identity. Cheers Herman #94092 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:41 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/12/28 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 27-dec-2008, om 0:28 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> I think that daily life is totally dependent on the complex process of >> memory, while being with the present moment is the absence of that >> complex process. > ------- > N: But memory, sa~n~naa arises with each and every citta. No problem > here. It is not as easy as you make out, I believe. It is the whole point of Nyanaponika Thera's article, The Omission of Memory in the Theravadin List of Dhammas. Here is a link. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SbIiaEx_8d8C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=The+Omissio\ n+of+Memory+from+the+List+of+Dhammas&source=bl&ots=0az0b8XWbN&sig=ZlKVhUTAix80lL\ iUQHa1IpJXRIs You cannot equate the sanna of the Abhidhamma with the memory of daily life. Cheers Herman #94093 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:48 pm Subject: Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself! truth_aerator Dear Scott, > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > I'd hoped to have spared a newcomer the rush of controversialism > offered by correspondents inimical to the aims of the list, The aim of the list is study of Buddha's teaching. The suttas are what was said by the Buddha. > I am aware of your views in this matter, disagree with > them completely because I find them ill-conceived and lacking in > understanding, and prefer to leave it at that. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Mine? I've just given you a sutta quote strait from the Buddha! Where are my views? They are Buddha's teachings! "Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, seeing you are careless, lead you astray and dominate you." - SN 2.10 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.10.irel.html Strait from the sutta! With best wishes, #94094 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation scottduncan2 Dear Alan, Regarding: A: "...The controversies that take place here tend to be lost on me so, Scott, do not be concerned." Scott: Very good, Alan. Sincerely, Scott. #94095 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:54 pm Subject: Re: Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself! scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...I've just given you a sutta quote..." Scott: No worries, Alex. I'm familiar with this manner of discourse. Sincerely, Scott. #94096 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself! truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...I've just given you a sutta quote..." > > Scott: No worries, Alex. I'm familiar with this manner of discourse. And what does it say, if I may ask? #94097 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison egberdina Hi Robert, 2008/12/30 Robert Epstein : > Given this absolute view of life as a prison, how does one account for > moments of kusala, sati, vipassana, etc., and how does one account for > the life of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, who are clearly released from all > clinging, yet continue to run around and teach, in the Buddha's case > for around 40 years? Was he still suffering as he taught? > There is no getting past the tilakkhana, I'm afraid. "Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self'' > Most make a distinction between the physical sufferings of old age, > disease and death that attend the physical existence and the suffering > intended by the Buddha, which is that caused by clinging and aversion, > as well as the ignorance that cause them. If you are saying that one > can only be free of the latter type of suffering by entering > parinibbana and ending human life completely, you are denying any > distinction between nibbana, which is complete freedom while still > alive, and parinibbana, the final form of nibbana in which form itself > is relinquished. In fact, are you not denying the possibility of > nibbana altogether? Nibbana is cessation of feeling and perception. That can be temporary, or it can be permanent. > > Too extreme, I would say, and annihilationist in nature, which Buddha > warned against. To say there is no possibility of liberation while > still living a human life, is make nibbana dependent on annihilation. > It is not the middle way. If you think there can be nibbana while being cognisant of being a living human being, you are going to be disappointed :-). Nibbana isn't dependent on annihilation, it isn't dependent on anything. But as long as there are perceptions of any kind, they are anicca, anatta and dukkha. And it is those perceptions that are dependent. And they will cease, given the right conditions. Cessation is not annihilation. Cheers Herman #94098 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself! egberdina Hi Scott, >> Dear Alex, >> >> Regarding: >> I'd hoped to have spared a newcomer the rush of controversialism >> offered by correspondents inimical to the aims of the list, > I am not offended by what you wrote, though it is highly offensive :-) Cheers Herman #94099 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:59 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation glenjohnann Hello Sarah, Alan, Nina and all I too am happily snow-bound on the west coast of Canada - Vancouver, which seldom finds itself in such conditions! Nina, know that I sent a couple of replies yesterday in which only the message to which I was replying showed up on the site. I am hoping that this one will go through in its entirety. My comments on yesterday's message were answered in listening to a tape of a discussion in Feb. 06. So, I will await another opportunity to jump in again. Best wishes to everyone for a happy new year and many more productive dhamma conversations. Sarah, lovely that you will be joining J. in Fiji this time - should be nice for both of you. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McAllister" wrote: > > Sarah: > > Thank you for your welcome back. It is nice to be remembered. Yes, I > am happily snow-bound at this very moment. > > with metta, > Alan > > #94100 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself! scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "I am not offended by what you wrote, though it is highly offensive :-)" Scott: Okay, Herman, sounds good. Sincerely, Scott. #94101 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:39 pm Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Albero, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi James, Herman, Robert, all > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > ... > > No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught > > that "Life is suffering". > ... > > The 1st ariya sacca doesn't say life, it mentions birth, old age and > death; it doesn't mention youth, for example, part of life too. It > also mentions pain, sorrow etc. but it doesn't mention pleasures, for > example, part of life too. It says that in short the 5 aggregates > object of clinging, pancupadanakhandha, are dukkha, not life, the > Buddha and other arahants had no clinging, no dukkha. It amazes me how even Buddhists want to argue this. I think that shows how deep the tendency to clinging goes. Anyway, it is not benefical to think in these terms. In order to reach nibbana, you have to become disenchanted with all forms of existence. You cannot think "Well, an arahant doesn't suffer so life isn't suffering"- that is counterproductive to the goal. Second, it isn't true. Arahants experience the physical suffering of pain, old age, and sickness. The life of an arahant is not 100% free of suffering. Granted, they don't experience mental suffering- and that is where most suffering occurs- but they still experience physical suffering. Complete unbinding only occurs at paranibbana. Arahants continue to live in order to help others reach liberation. If they cannot teach others by entering the holy life, they will immediately enter paranibbana. There is nothing pleasurable or worthwhile about this human life or any type of life. Life is suffering, no matter how you slice it. Metta, James #94102 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:01 pm Subject: Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > c: I'm quite willing to accept that living beings are the object of metta. So, yes, how are we to understand the "travelling" of thought? Does my thinking actually arise in other people, that is, is it that metta 'goes out' or that the (mental) targets are 'brought in'? > James: I am not an expert in this regard but I can give you my opinion. We all have a survival instinct. All living things "sense" danger with all of the six senses (including the mind). If you go around with a mind of hate and wanting to hurt others, other living beings can "sense" that (to varying degrees depending on their mental ability). This is an empathic ability, a psychic ability. When you generate metta to all living beings then living beings no longer see you as a threat. That is why the Buddha gave the 11 benefits of developing metta: "One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and ĄX if penetrating no higher ĄX is headed for the Brahma worlds. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.016.than.html So, the radiating of metta is not a form of "mind control". That elephant initially saw the Buddha has a potential threat so he charged at him. He Buddha radiated such strong metta toward the elephant that the elephant then no longer saw him as a potential threat. The elephant was pacified not because of mind control but because his fear response was blunted. This is how I see what happened- but I'm sure it is probably even more complicated than that. :-) Metta, James #94103 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation buddhatrue Hi Alan (and Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McAllister" wrote: > > Alex: > > This is beginning to make more sense to me. I suspected that there > was some kind of developmental process involved. However, in > anapanasati, you attend to the breath from the get-go, and only return > to it if you have wandered off into internal visualization and > thinking and such like. > > Regards, > Alan > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Alex wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > First you generate metta through internal visualizations & good > > thoughts. Then you stop internal visualization & thinking. > > > > Then you Focus on the pleasant feeling only and make it your object of > > observation like the breath in anapanasati to which you come back. > > > > With best wishes, I am not sure what Alex is describing but the object(s) of metta meditation are all beings, in all dimensions, in all directions. One expands his or her consciousness in all directions to wish all beings well. This is an expansion of consciousness. Granted, this may produce feelings of loving kindness in the chest area, but I don't believe that concentration should then be focused there. The Buddha specifically talks about filling the mind and all directions with thoughts of loving kindness. It is not the cultivation of a physical sensation. The goal of the practice is to purify the mind of ill-will toward others. If you just concentrate on love feelings in the chest, then the goal will be changed to cultivating a specific feeling. Granted, this second type of cultivation could lead to jhana (with joy and bliss filling the body) but the mind will not be purified of ill-will. The love-good feelings would only arise during meditation. Metta, James #94104 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation TGrand458@... Hi Scott and Alex In a message dated 12/30/2008 1:30:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: I'd hoped to have spared a newcomer the rush of controversialism offered by correspondents inimical to the aims of the list, ....................................................... TG: Are the aims of this list to be mindless automotoms that rotely follow words in commentaries? Is the aim to indoctrinate a newcomer to a one sided theory. Is the aim to disregard the Suttas unless twisted into saying things they don't say at all? If the answer to any of these is yes, then its a better group than I thought! :-) #94105 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Are the aims of this list to be mindless automotoms that rotely follow words in commentaries? Is the aim to indoctrinate a newcomer to a one sided theory. Is the aim to disregard the Suttas unless twisted into saying things they don't say at all?" Scott: I don't think so, TG. Sincerely, Scott. #94106 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych James: Thanks for entering into this conversation. Is the final result of metta meditation the generation of a certain feeling (in the chest or elsewhere in the body)? If it is, does it have an object? Being what it is I cannot see how it could be without an object. Presumably you have to love something. If it has an object (all beings, for instance), then isn't that the object of meditation? This seems to bring me full circle. Is there a "decider" around here somewhere? with metta to all, Alan #94107 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation buddhatrue Hi Alan, I'm afraid there is no "decider" around here. :-) We each just give our opinion and it is up to you to pick and choose. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McAllister" wrote: > > James: > > Thanks for entering into this conversation. > > Is the final result of metta meditation the generation of a certain > feeling (in the chest or elsewhere in the body)? James: Yes, that is the result, but that isn't the goal. One may think "May all beings be happy, etc" but it is just an empty thought. In that case, there is no genuine feeling of love in the body and heart. One should think thoughts of loving kindness until there is the genuine feeling of loving kindness in the body. However, the feeling isn't the goal. The goal is to generate those thoughts of loving kindness until the hindrances are supressed and then one enters jhana. In that way, the mind is more purified of ill will toward others. it is, does it > have an object? Being what it is I cannot see how it could be without > an object. Presumably you have to love something. If it has an > object (all beings, for instance), then isn't that the object of > meditation? > > This seems to bring me full circle. James: I think my above explanation answers your questions, if not let me know. > > Is there a "decider" around here somewhere? > > with metta to all, > Alan > Metta, James #94108 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Thanks, James, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.016.than.html So, the radiating of metta is not a form of "mind control". That elephant initially saw the Buddha has a potential threat so he charged at him. He Buddha radiated such strong metta toward the elephant that the elephant then no longer saw him as a potential threat. The elephant was pacified not because of mind control but because his fear response was blunted. This is how I see what happened- but I'm sure it is probably even more complicated than that. :-) c: I appreciate your opinion & don't reject the empathic/psychic part even though for the most part, the initial clues, I'd think, must be visible or audible - the way anger manifests as various uglinesses in appearance and behaviour so one doesn't need to be much of a mind reader at all to feel that urge to shrink back. And then sometimes you find out you were wrong, it's just the way the person seems to come across at first. I love the eleven benefits thing, but again, the elephant here was a weapon and a non-human being, so it doesn't really help me: "Virtue protects the virtuous" or it's impossible to kill a Buddha. (someone might've mentioned that to Devadatta!) What I'm still trying to understand is what, in terms of non-physicality, 'radiation' is supposed to suggest. I mean, it's not like consciousness has literal wings; when 'thoughts travel far', they haven't really left the cave; the blind needs the cripple to carry it sort of thing. I hadn't even considered 'mind control' - lol. Well, maybe another word for "radiation" will come up later, unless, as I suspect, it's not quite right. That survival instinct must be some functioning of the life faculty. peace, connie #94109 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych James: I was making an attempt at humour by invoking GW. However, I am sure it is more than just a matter of opinion and picking and choosing. Logic, scriptural sources, recognized authorities surely have a role here. I, for one, appreciate a well-constructed argument, which I think you presented. more metta, Alan On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Alan, > > I'm afraid there is no "decider" around here. :-) We each just give > our opinion and it is up to you to pick and choose. > > #94110 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych James, Another thought. I hope it is clear that I am using the term "object" in the sense of "object of thought" or "object of attention" not objective, goal, or purpose. Now, if we develop loving-kindness by taking ourselves or other beings as objects in that sense, when we go into Jhana what is the object? I looked up Jhana on the access to insight website: "Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention." So when we enter into jhana through loving-kindness meditation, what is the object? metta, Alan #94111 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:08 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn Thanks again, Howard! c: This is another of those stonewalls for me... seems the distinction must be known by some means or another and i don't know what to call it if not something like "characteristic, function & manifestation". Can you help me out here, Howard? --------- Howard: My disinterest falls along the following lines: 1) I've not seen these categories defined in any way meaningful to me, 2) I don't feel the need for such notions as regards phenomena with which I am quite familiar as a matter of direct experience, and 3) The terms strike me as empty jargon. (Otherwise, though, I just love 'em! LOLOL!) ---------- c: O good! lol. I was happy to find only a four factored "definitional device" when I'd (Lotus Sutra days) been used to trying to figure out ten that didn't make much sense to me: << "The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas. This reality consists of appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end." >> Basically, I'd say, any standard dictionary would give a good enough meaning, but I'm guessing you mean doctrinal & probably not the Asl 135's simile of the wise king where "the increasing of the income by suitable arts is like the classification of the various states according to their functions". "Aspects", maybe. peace, connie #94112 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation buddhatrue Hi Alan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McAllister" wrote: > > James, > > Another thought. I hope it is clear that I am using the term "object" > in the sense of "object of thought" or "object of attention" not > objective, goal, or purpose. Now, if we develop loving-kindness by > taking ourselves or other beings as objects in that sense, when we go > into Jhana what is the object? I looked up Jhana on the access to > insight website: "Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness > and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and > absorbed in the chosen object of attention." So when we enter into > jhana through loving-kindness meditation, what is the object? > > metta, > Alan Well, Scott is quoting from the Path of Purification which details a specific method to follow for the development of metta, the objects at each stage, etc. Personally, I don't agree with the Path of Purification in this regard. I believe that the suttas point out a different method with different objects. I will detail the steps which the suttas point to, but I will have to quote three different suttas. First step: Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html James: So, the first step is to wish for all beings to be happy at heart. You think of the different categories of beings: weak and strong, long and short, small and large, seen and unseen, near and far, etc. You think of these categories and you wish for all beings to be happy at heart. Second step: "That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can notify the four directions without any difficulty,... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html#br ahma1 James: So, after the mind has become devoid of ill will and mindful, one needs to pervade these thoughts of loving kindness into the four directions (east, west, north, south) and above and below. The goal is to expand thoughts of loving kindness through all directions of the universe. Third step: "Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well- undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html James: So, after the metta has been effectively pervaded into the cosmos, in all directions, this practice should be perfected until it leads to the four jhanas. Again, this is quite different from what the Path of Purification teaches. Stay tuned for Scott's posts as he details that method. Metta, James #94113 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:04 am Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Alan, Welcome to DSG. I haven't read all the replies yet, but I can never resist a cry for help. :-) ------------- A: > Help! As so often happens, I am struggling with a problem the solution to which is likely glaringly obvious to others. ------------- Yes, I am afraid that is true, and it will continue to be true for some time to come. It still happens to me. Sometimes my DSG friends are able to help, sometimes I am beyond help. Thos is because the Dhamma is so extremely deep and difficult to see. When we are looking at it with the idea of a self-who-is-looking we will fail to see it. ----------------------- A: > I am trying to work out the idea of the object of meditation in metta. ----------------------- The object is 'a concept of a sentient being.' So you will need to know what a concept - as distinct from a reality - is. And you will need to know how concepts are created . . . . what can make metta (adosa-cetasika) arise to take a concept as its object . . . what can make adosa *not* arise to take it as its object . . . is there any control over the arising/non-arising of adosa . . . and so on and so forth. It's not easy to understand, but it's well worth the effort. So I hope we, and the ancient Pali texts we are getting all this from, will be able to help you. Ken H #94114 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison sprlrt Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > It amazes me how even Buddhists want to argue this. I think that > shows how deep the tendency to clinging goes. My objection's about what you claimed is in the tipitaka (the Buddha taught "life is suffering"...). > Anyway, it is not benefical to think in these terms. That pleasure is different from suffering? In order to reach nibbana, you > have to become disenchanted with all forms of existence. You cannot > think "Well, an arahant doesn't suffer so life isn't suffering"- > that is counterproductive to the goal. The 1st NT is dukkha sacca, is the truth of, or about, or regarding suffering (not about "life is..."), which is the unavoidable result of clinging, the 2nd NT, samudaya sacca, the truth about the origin, the cause and the condition for dukkha to arise. The 3rd NT is the truth about the cessation of dukkha, nirodha sacca, arahatta lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbana for the 4th and last time, which are the ultimate result of the path, the 4th NT, magga sacca, the truth about the noble path, satipatthana, the origin, the cause and the condition for arahatta lokuttara cittas to arise and destroy clinging, the origin, the cause, the condition for dukkha to arise. > Second, it isn't true. > Arahants experience the physical suffering of pain, old age, and > sickness. The life of an arahant is not 100% free of suffering. An arahant would know perfectly well that whatever painful feelings experienced through body sense door processes (the only dukkha an arahant could possibly experience) is vipaka, the unavoidable result of past kamma. > Granted, they don't experience mental suffering- and that is where > most suffering occurs- but they still experience physical > suffering. Complete unbinding only occurs at paranibbana. > > Arahants continue to live in order to help others reach liberation. > If they cannot teach others by entering the holy life, they will > immediately enter paranibbana. There is nothing pleasurable or > worthwhile about this human life or any type of life. I'd say that there are pleasures but they aren't worthwhile, being conditioned by clinging, which in its turn conditions dukkha. > > Life is suffering, no matter how you slice it. Not in the tipitaka, sorry :-) Alberto #94115 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 30-dec-2008, om 22:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Connie: Seems the distinction must > be known by some means or another and i don't know what to call it > if not > something like "characteristic, function & manifestation". Can you > help me out > here, Howard? > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My disinterest falls along the following lines: 1) I've not seen these > categories defined in any way meaningful to me, 2) I don't feel the > need for > such notions as regards phenomena with which I am quite familiar as > a matter > of direct experience, and 3) The terms strike me as empty jargon. -------- N: Can I help out here? Perhaps more examples can make them meaningful. And direct experience: a delicate subject. By what type of citta is this direct experience, can we be sure it is by pa~n~naa cetasika? I myself find it difficult to be sure, because this can only occur at the moments of sammaa sati and sammaa di.t.thi of the eightfold Path. It is not thinking, as you know. An example: Visuddhimagga XIV, 141, sati. Together with the tiika the explanations are very helpful, but it depends on your interest how you find this: Intro: Sati, mindfulness, is a sobhana cetasika, arising with each sobhana citta. It remembers, is non-forgetful of what is wholesome. The Text uses the word sara.na, remembering, but this cetasika is different from sańńaa, recognition or remembrance, which arises with each citta. Text Vis.: 141. (x) By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers, or it is just remembering (sara.na), thus it is 'mindfulness' (sati). N: As to the words, they remember (saranti), this refers to the accompanying dhammas that are conditioned by sati. Just as the Vis. states in the case of saddhaa: by means of it they have faith. The Tiika explains that the accompanying dhammas are conditioned by the predominant influence of sati. When there is such condition it is said in conventional language (vohaaro) that a person ‘remembers’. N: He remembers, is non-forgetful of what is wholesome. Text Vis. : It has the characteristic of not wobbling. [64] Note 64 (from the Tiika). 'Apilaapana' ("not wobbling") is the steadying of an object, the remembering and not forgetting it, keeping it as immovable as a stone instead of letting it go bobbing about like a pumpkin in water'. Text Vis. : Its function is not to forget. N: Sati is steadfast with regard to an object, it is non-forgetful. Whenever there is an opportunity for daana, siila or bhaavanaa, sati is non-forgetful, it does not let such an opportunity pass. Sati prevents us from committing evil deeds. Siila is not only abstention from akusala but it also includes helping others by action or speech. When sati arises we do not neglect the opportunity to help others. There is sati with bhaavanaa. Bhaavanaa includes samatha and vipassanaa. Sati is non-forgetful of the meditation subject of samatha and non-forgetful of the object of vipassanaa: a naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : It is manifested as guarding, N: The Tiika refers to Gradual Sayings, Book of the Tens, X, 20: “By guarding mindfulness he is composed of mind” (“Sataarakkhena cetasaa”ti). The Co to this sutta refers to the sati of the arahat who accomplishes the function of guarding the three doors all the time. These are the doors of action, speech and mind. The Co explains that he guards those, no matter he walks, stands, sleeps or is awake. Text Vis.: or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. N: The Tiika explains that sati does not go elsewhere and that by it the object of citta is confronted. When there is sati there is no agitation or distraction from the object that is experienced at that moment. When the object is experienced by kusala citta with sati the citta is intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa. Text Vis.: Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasańńaa). N: Firm remembrance is the proximate cause of sati. When one listens to the Dhamma and considers it again and again there can be firm remembrance of what one has heard, and thus, there are conditions for the arising of sati which is mindful of the naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : or its proximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness concerned with the body, and so on (see M. Sutta 10). N: The four Applications of Mindfulness include all naamas and ruupas that can be the objects of mindfulness. When they have become the objects or bases for sati they are the proximate cause of mindfulness. The four Applications of Mindfulness remind us that naama and ruupa occurring in daily life are the objects of mindfulness. We are reminded to be aware of naama and ruupa no matter whether we are walking, standing, sitting of lying down. Also when akusala citta arises it can be object of mindfulness, it is classified under the Application of Mindfulness of citta. One should learn to see citta in citta and not take akusala citta for self. Text Vis.: It should be regarded, however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. N: Mindfulness guards the doors of the senses and the mind-door. Whenever there is mindfulness of visible object that appears and this is realized as only a ruupa appearing through the eyedoor, we are not infatuated by this object, there are no lobha, dosa or moha on account of it. Mindfulness is an indriya, a " controlling faculty", a "leader' of the citta and accompanying cetasikas in its function of heedfulness, of non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome. We read in the Expositor ((I, Part IV, Ch II< 147): <... It exercises government (over associated states) in the characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object- this is the faculty of mindfulness.> As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the object that presents itself. Sati does not move away from the present object, it is steadfast like a pillar. Mindfulness is non-forgetful of the object, and understanding (pańńaa) has the function of knowing it as it is. Right Mindfulness is one of the Path-factors and it is among the factors leading to enlightenment. **** Nina. #94116 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone nilovg Dear Rob Ep (and Howard), Op 27-dec-2008, om 21:20 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Even though the citta is gone when this happens and the anantara > paccaya appears to be a distinct arising or mechanism, it seems that > through this process a kind of movement of "moment-to-moment" changes > does take place. How this occurs and how it is experienced both with > and without sati would be of great interest to me. -------- N: As Howard also explained, there is only one citta at a time, and the previous one must fall away before the succeeding one can occur. It is very meaningful that absence-condition is among the list of conditions. It is the same as anantara-paccaya and samanantara- paccaya, the same realities are involved. But it clarifies that a citta cannot arise without the previous one having gone. Still, there is a connection of cittas. In a process of cittas, such as the eye-door process of cittas, first there has to be the eye-door adverting consciousness before there can be seeing and seeing is followed by oth cittas that do not see but still experience visible object that has not fallen away. There is a fixed order of cittas arising in processes, niyama in Pali. No person can change this, and this shows anatta. The cittas arising from birth to death, within processes and also those that are not in processes (rebirth-consciousness, all bhavangacittas and dying-consciousness) form a long series. We are born with certain capacities and qualities and the bhavanga-citta is a similar type of citta as the rebirth-consciousness. The bhavanga- citta maintains the continuity in the life of an individual. Kamma and also good and bad tendencies of the past are accumulated in each citta and since each citta is succeeded by a next one, these accumulations go on from moment to moment, from life to life. That is why past kamma can produce results in the form of rebirth and of pleasant or unpleasant experiences through the senses. This can happen so sudden, suddenly we may have an accident or be in hospital with great pains. Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations. There is no way to explain how this can happen by way of quantum philosophy or science. You taught your daughter from her youth how to be polite, to be generous, to help others. Since she practised this from her youth there are also opportunities for these qualities to appear today. They were accumulated. All she learns at school is never lost, it is accumulated from moment to moment. How is this experienced with sati, you ask. Through the development of insight there will be direct understanding of kamma and vipaaka, and also there will be a clearer understanding of what we learnt about citta, about kusala citta and akusala citta. What is known through direct understanding is in comformity with the theory. But the development is very, very gradual, and one has to begin to understand more about the difference between nama and rupa. So we cannot expect to clearly understand at this moment how there can be accumulations. But we know that there are accumulations. Nina. #94117 From: Philip Miller Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] forerunners... pem218 Thank you, Connie, for the verses you adduced, for they anticipated the "questions" I raised in a message prior to this and that just appeared! With Metta Phil M --- On Tue, 12/30/08, connie wrote: From: connie Asl 68-69: 'Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind. #94118 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison buddhatrue Hi Alberto, I enjoy this conversation. It is so important to cover these basics again and again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > The 1st NT is dukkha sacca, is the truth of, or about, or regarding > suffering (not about "life is..."), which is the unavoidable result of > clinging, the 2nd NT, samudaya sacca, the truth about the origin, the > cause and the condition for dukkha to arise. James: I am starting to see your objection to my stating the first noble truth as "Life is suffering" is because the Buddha didn't phrase it that way. Granted, the Buddha didn't phrase it that way, but is that what is meant? First, I have to define what I mean by "life". I mean a human life or deva life, or becoming any type of being with a life force. I don't mean time, space, sense objects, experiences, etc. Often life is defined in those terms, as in "Get a Life!" meaning: have more experiences. No, I mean the life force of various beings. Second, let's look at what the Buddha specifically said: "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#wheel James: The second noble truth is that the origination of dukkha is "the craving that makes for further becoming". Most people tend to overlook that and just see "dukkha is caused by craving". In other words, dukkha is just caused by craving things and if one ends craving such things as money, cars, sex, etc., then that will be the end of dukkha. No, the true end of dukkha is the end of becoming! Is saying "Life is suffering" a denial of the pleasures in life experience? No, of course there are pleasures in life experiences, but they are also suffering. The Dhamma is deep and difficult to see and this is the most difficult to see. If it wasn't, there would be arahants on every corner. As I often tell myself "Give up the ghost!". (the Buddha called it "the builder", but I identify more with "ghost"). Metta, James #94119 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison egberdina Hi Alberto, 2008/12/31 sprlrt : > Hi James, Herman, Robert, all > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > ... >> No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught >> that "Life is suffering". > ... > > The 1st ariya sacca doesn't say life, it mentions birth, old age and > death; it doesn't mention youth, for example, part of life too. It > also mentions pain, sorrow etc. but it doesn't mention pleasures, for > example, part of life too. It says that in short the 5 aggregates > object of clinging, pancupadanakhandha, are dukkha, not life, the > Buddha and other arahants had no clinging, no dukkha. > "From the Book of Ones: 328. In the same way, Beggars, as even a Small Measure of Dung [gutho] Comes to Smell [duggandho] Bad, I do not Recommend Living [bhavam = becoming], even if for only so short a time as it takes to SNAP the Fingers. (this is repeated using urine, phlegm, pus and blood) Believe whatever you will it to mean. Cheers Herman #94120 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:29 am Subject: Happy New Year and reminder time again! dsgmods Hi All, Wishing everyone a happy, healthy and wise New Year! Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another post, please remember to trim any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you may assume that other members will have seen it. Salutation etc To avoid confusion, please use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and sign off at the end (preferably with a real name). We appreciate your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS The full guidelines can be found in the files section. Comments or questions off-list only. Thanks #94121 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:51 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, The "development" section continues: Now this commentarial definition of dhamma as sabhava poses an important problem, for it seems to go against an earlier Theravada tradition recorded in the Patisambhidamagga. This canonical text specifically states that the five aggregates are devoid of own-nature (sabhavena-su~n~na).46 Since the dhammas are the elementary constituents of the five aggregates, this should mean that the dhammas, too, are devoid of own-nature. What is more, does not the very use of the term sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this not amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance? {46. Psm II 211.} The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions. {47. Abhvk 414; DhsA 63; PsmA 18; Mvn 6.} Consonant with this situation, it is also maintained that there is no other thing called a dhamma than the "quality" of being borne by conditions.48 The same idea is expressed in the oft-recurrent statement that what is called a dhamma is the mere fact of occurrence due to appropriate conditions.49 In point of fact, in commenting upon the Patisambhidamagga statement that the five aggregates -- and, by implication, the dhammas -- are devoid of sabhava, the commentator observes that since the aggregates have no self-nature, they are devoid of own-nature.50 It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being. peace, connie #94122 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:56 am Subject: Re: Happy New Year and reminder time again! szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah and Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi All, > > Wishing everyone a happy, healthy and wise New Year! > Dear Sarah and Jon Thanks a lot. Any New Year Dhamma lecture? can we discuss more on nama-rupa? Best wishes Lukas #94123 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy New Year and reminder time again! sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- On Wed, 31/12/08, szmicio wrote: >Any New Year Dhamma lecture? can we discuss more on nama-rupa? ... S: Oh great idea - the best reminder:-). A few words for you to elaborate into a 'Dhamma lecture'. I'll join in after a few days when settled in Fiji! We think of the whole world, the various traumas, the great joys, the New Year parties, resolutions and disasters.......all a dream. There are only ever-passing, insignificant namas and rupas. And there is only ever the present citta, now! All the rest have completely gone or not yet come. And those that arose while you read this note have all gone too, never to return.... There can be peace and wisdom now, when there's wise reflection or right understanding at this very moment of the nama or rupa appearing. Metta, Sarah ========= #94124 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison sprlrt Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Alberto, > > I enjoy this conversation. It is so important to cover these basics > again and again. Thanks James, I find it helpful too. > > James: I am starting to see your objection to my stating the first > noble truth as "Life is suffering" is because the Buddha didn't phrase > it that way. Granted, the Buddha didn't phrase it that way, but is > that what is meant? > > First, I have to define what I mean by "life". I mean a human life or > deva life, or becoming any type of being with a life force. I don't > mean time, space, sense objects, experiences, etc. Often life is > defined in those terms, as in "Get a Life!" meaning: have more > experiences. No, I mean the life force of various beings. > > Second, let's look at what the Buddha specifically said: ... > "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the > craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & > delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual > pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. > ... > James: The second noble truth is that the origination of dukkha > is "the craving that makes for further becoming". Most people tend to > overlook that and just see "dukkha is caused by craving". In other > words, dukkha is just caused by craving things and if one ends craving > such things as money, cars, sex, etc., then that will be the end of > dukkha. No, the true end of dukkha is the end of becoming! There can be craving for non-becoming as well as for becoming, as the quote clearly states, which would still originate dukkha, just the same. > Is saying "Life is suffering" a denial of the pleasures in life > experience? No, of course there are pleasures in life experiences, > but they are also suffering. The Dhamma is deep and difficult to see > and this is the most difficult to see. If it wasn't, there would be > arahants on every corner. > Your reference is to the other two levels (of the three) of dukkha, the first is dukkha relating to unpleasant feeling, the second, higher level refers to dukkha inherent even in pleasant feeling, i.e. knowing that it won't last, and the third, highest level refers to dukkha as the characteristic of all 5 khandhas, to their arising just to fall immediately away. Alberto #94125 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation nichiconn dear friends, A: > I am trying to work out the idea of the object of meditation in metta. ----------------------- KH: The object is 'a concept of a sentient being.' c: yes, thanks, Ken. Seems i will be forever having to repeat the old "strive for precision in your speech" mantra. It seems redundant to have to say so, but concepts it is. Heck, even if i had a real heart, how friendly would it be to cram everyone in there? N: Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations. There is no way to explain how this can happen by way of quantum philosophy or science. peace, connie #94126 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:26 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, Ch.V, 2.Planes of Time continues: . In the postcanonical Abhidhamma literature it is said that the duration of a material phenomenon is equal to sixteen moments of consciousness. In other words, one material time unit equals sixteen mental time units of average human consciousness. The number "sixteen" should not be taken as a definite time measure, the less so since the unit of one moment of consciousness is metaphorically defined as "the billionth part of a flash of lightning." It is only the ratio of 1:16 - a comparative relation - that is expressed here. In the same way, a complete process of sense perception (pa~ncadvaaraviithi) has been hypothetically determined as lasting sixteen moments, {65} in order to fix the proportional duration of the single phases of that process; for example, impulsion (javana) occupies seven of these sixteen. The relative duration of a material unit was determined as equalling that of a complete perceptual process, that is, sixteen moments. The choice of the number "sixteen" may have been influenced by the fact that in India this number was (and is) a very popular measuring unit of space, time, etc., often used metaphorically. {66} A Westerner with his decimal system might have chosen "ten" as a starting point for distributing proportional values. {65} Leaving aside the preceding moment during which the object existed without being perceived, which properly does not belong to the process itself. {66} See, e.g., the well-known passage in the Itivuttaka (no.27): "Just as the light of the stars is in its intensity not the sixteenth part of the light of the moon, likewise all those meritorious actions forming the basis (of rebirth) are, in their value, not the sixteenth part of love, the liberation of heart." By the ratio 1:16 an estimate of the relative velocity of corporeal and mental processes is given - the former being considerably slower than the latter. The commentary to the Vibha'nga says: "In corporeal things change is difficult and cessation slow; in mental things change is easy and cessation quick." {67} {67} VibhA 25: To circumscribe in that way the time rhythm of corporeal things in terms of consciousness is justified (1) by the second principle laid down in the commentarial stanza, "And by the mind [he] described the time"; and (2) by the close connection between time and consciousness corresponding to the connection between space and matter. But there is yet a third point that is important to remember when material processes are related to or explained by mental ones: it is a fundamental idea of Buddhist philosophy that matter cannot exist without a kammic consciousness desiring life in a material world: "If, Aananda, there were no kamma maturing in the sensuous sphere, could sensuous existence (kaamabhava) appear?" - "Surely not, Lord" (AN I 223). Of course, this must not be taken to imply an idealistic conclusion; for mind, like all component things, is a conditioned phenomenon and cannot be regarded as a sole cause, be it of matter or of anything else. But, avoiding the extreme beliefs in primacy of matter or primacy of mind, we can say that both matter and mind are manifestations of kammic energy at varying distances from the generative source of that energy. We may also express it thus: that around the center of generative kammic energy several peripheral circles revolve. Closest to the center we have to imagine the kamma-results proper (vipaaka), which are only mental states. Next comes the circle of such matter as is directly produced by kamma (kammaja- or kamma-samu.t.thaana-ruupa), which is only one division of matter. After that come kinds of matter produced by consciousness (cittasamu.t.thaana), by food (aahaarasamu.t.thaana), and by such physical influences as temperature (utusamu.t.thaana). {68} The latter, too, though most distant from the center, must be assumed to be still connected with the kammic force. {68} This is an allusion to the Abhidhamma conception of the four causes of corporeal phenomena; see CMA 246-52. peace, connie #94127 From: "sprlrt" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison sprlrt Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > > wrote: > > > > ... > >> No, the Buddha didn't teach that "There is suffering", he taught > >> that "Life is suffering". > > ... > > > > The 1st ariya sacca doesn't say life, it mentions birth, old age and > > death; it doesn't mention youth, for example, part of life too. It > > also mentions pain, sorrow etc. but it doesn't mention pleasures, for > > example, part of life too. It says that in short the 5 aggregates > > object of clinging, pancupadanakhandha, are dukkha, not life, the > > Buddha and other arahants had no clinging, no dukkha. > > > > > "From the Book of Ones: > > 328. In the same way, Beggars, as even a Small Measure of Dung [gutho] > Comes to Smell [duggandho] Bad, I do not Recommend Living [bhavam = > becoming], even if for only so short a time as it takes to SNAP the > Fingers. > > (this is repeated using urine, phlegm, pus and blood) > > Believe whatever you will it to mean. > New year's eve dinner not mentioned :-) Alberto #94128 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/31/2008 5:33:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of knowledge. ---------------------------------------------- There is no way to explain how this can happen by way of quantum philosophy or science. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't cite quantum mechanics as a matter of explanation of conditionality in the Dhamma, but only as a matter of analogy, likening the action-at-a-distance of quantum mechanics to a temporal analog of the same as regards the conditionality taught by the Buddha. ====================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94129 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Dear Scott, James and all in this corner, (rather long.....) Brace yourselves! I think James has raised some very pertinent questions and made some good points in this thread with regard to the so-called instructions about what 'should' be done in the Vism. Read on. --- On Mon, 29/12/08, Scott wrote: >The Path of Purification. "5. What is the reason why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the others? To put an antipathetic person in a dear one's place is fatiguing. To put a very dearly loved friend in a neutral person's place is fatiguing; and if the slightest mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping. To put a neutral person in a respected one's or a dear one's place is fatiguing. Anger springs up in him if he recollects a hostile person. That is why it should not be developed at first towards an antipathetic person and the rest." >The Path of Purity. "Why should it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on? By holding an unloved person dear one gets tired; by being indifferent to a very dear friend, one gets tired; for should the dear friend experience the slightest pain, one feels disposed to weep. By showing respect and love towards a neutral person, one gets tired. Anger arises in him who thinks of his enemy. Therefore love should not be developed first towards the unloved ones and so on." >Ki.mkaara.naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa? Appiya.m hi piya.t.thaane .thapento kilamati. Atippiyasahaayaka. m majjhatta.t. thaane .thapento kilamati, appamattakepi cassa dukkhe uppanne aarodanaakaarappatt o viya hoti. Majjhatta.m garu.t.thaane ca piya.t.thaane ca .thapento kilamati. Verimanussarato kodho uppajjati, tasmaa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa. .... Sarah: As we see, both translators, both great Pali scholars, read the Pali here as a set of instructions about what 'should' be done. And then of course there is the part which reads as though metta should be developed to oneself first. These are all the common understandings and as we've seen, friends believe they've attained various jhanas in such a way. As James has pointed out in his usual direct way, such an interpretaion makes no sense and doesn't conform to the teachings as we understand them. Dhammas arise by conditions, there is no self to direct (or radiate), there is no order of people that metta 'should be' developed towards, no exclusions and certainly the Buddha was not advocating metta to the 'dearest of all', oneself. Later extracts in the Vism. will clarify the last point - thinking of how we care for kindness and metta, so do others. (There's also a stack of U.P. on this point under "Metta"). Back to the instructions and all those 'shoulds' and 'should nots'. Like Phil C and James, I think they are generally out of place in the teachings. The teachings are not about rules, but about explanations of what occurs, how and when different wholesome and unwholesome kinds of consciousness arise and what has to be developed in order to lead out of the prison. "Ki.mkaara.naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa?". Perhaps instead of translating this as: "Why **should** it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on?" It could be translated as: "Why ***may** it not be developed towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on?". Clearly, from common-sense we know that there often isn't metta to those we're not fond of, just as there often isn't metta to those we're over fond of, or a hostile person. In other words, much of the time when we think of others, instead of metta, there's annoyance or attachment. Why? Because we don't consider their needs in the way we consider the needs of the one we hold so dear - oneself. When we begin to appreciate that others would like kindness, gentleness and friendliness, just as we do, and start treating others accordingly, metta may develop. ***** So what about the Pali? na bhaavetabbaa: translated above as 'should not be developed', or by me as 'may not be developed. As I understand, this is the optative future passive participle. Warder, lesson 14, p.86: "The optative (or "potential") (sattamii) tense is used for any hypothetical action. It may be translated by "should", "would", "may", etc. lesson 16, p.104: "the sense of the future passive participle is generally not simply future but rather imperative or optative: "this must be done," "this should be done," "this ought to be done," ALSO "this can be done". ***** Side-track as the same kind of issue and Pali verb tense comes up regularly on another topic. Before we had many discussions on whether there can be ta.nhaa which "should be pursued": For example, the following has been quoted from "Three Cheers for Tanha" by Robert Morrison (Dharmachari Sagaramati), http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tanha.html "5. Skilful and Unskilful Ta.nhaa "Although, as I have said, the common and accepted traditional view of ta.nhaa is of a state antithetical to the Buddhist spiritual life, there are some rarely commented-upon passages which indicate that ta.nhaa also has a more wholesome aspect. "In the A'nguttara Nikaaya we have the statement: 'he abandons ta.nhaa by means of ta.nhaa'.[27] But as to what this statement might imply, the sutta itself provides only a hint, and is in need of exegesis. Fortunately, the commentary provides some: "Based on the present craving [ta.nhaa] (i. e., desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root-cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantship) is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? — It is unwholesome. — Should it be pursued or not? — It should be pursued [sevitabbaa]. — Does it drag one into rebirth [pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati] or not? — It does not drag one into rebirth.[28] "As Nyanaponika adds at the end of this quote, 'Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained'." .... Sarah: So the suggestion is that some ta.nhaa "should be pursued (sevitabbaa)" which clearly makes no sense either. If instead, we use the optative form of 'may', then clearly "It may be pursued" makes perfect sense with the Teachings as a whole. There may be desire for becoming an arahant even for those who have eradicated almost all attachment. (For more on this side-thread, see U.P. "tanha - 3 cheers for?".) ... I'm merely suggesting that we not be blinded by words, whatever the source. We always have to consider and reflect on the real meaning as it applies to this very moment. Now, ta.nhaa is never wholesome and mettaa always is - it may be developed right now! Metta, Sarah p.s James....such agreement between us these days must be a record! ======== #94130 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:33 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "7. But if he develops it towards a dead person, he reaches neither absorption nor access. A young bhikkhu, it seems, had started developing lovingkindness inspired by his teacher. His lovingkindness made no headway at all. He went to the senior elder and told him. 'Venerable sir, I am quite familiar with attaining jhaana through lovingkindness, and yet I cannot attain it. What is the matter?'. The elder said, 'Seek the sign, friend, [the object of your meditation]'. He did so. Finding that his teacher had died, he proceeded with developing lovingkindness inspired by another and attained absorption. That is why it should not be developed towards one who is dead." The Path of Purity. "Developing love towards the dead, one reaches neither ecstasy nor access. Once a young monk began to stir up love towards his teacher. Love would not come. So he went to the Elder and said, 'Sir, I have been practising the Jhaana attainment of love but I cannot enter into it. What may be the reason?' The Elder said, 'Look, friend, for the outward sign.'* And the monk, looking for it, knew that the teacher was dead, and directing his love towards another Elder, entered upon attainment. Therefor love should not be developed for the dead." *I.e. 'See if he is alive.' Kaalakate pana bhaavento neva appana.m, na upacaara.m paapu.naati. A~n~nataro kira daharabhikkhu aacariya.m aarabbha metta.m aarabhi. Tassa mettaa nappavattati. So mahaatherassa santika.m gantvaa 'bhante, pagu.naava me mettaajhaanasamaapatti, na ca na.m samaapajjitu.m sakkomi, ki.m nu kho kaara.na'nti aaha. Thero 'nimitta.m, aavuso, gavesaahii'ti aaha. So gavesanto aacariyassa matabhaava.m ~natvaa a~n~na.m aarabbha mettaayanto samaapatti.m appesi. Tasmaa kaalakate na bhaavetabbaava. Sincerely, Scott. #94131 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 12/31/2008 7:51:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: #94121 ==================== It seems to me that this section is *central* to much of what gets discussed on DSG, and I'm eager to see what is said by us on DSG with regard to it. It is this topic plus the matter of meditation that constitute 90% of the disputation on the list, it seems to me. With metta, Howard Emptiness *(From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality *(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94132 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation nilovg Dear Ann, It would be helpful for many if you could render this discussion. Nina. Op 31-dec-2008, om 0:59 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > Nina, know that I sent a couple of replies yesterday in which only > the message to which I was replying showed up on the site. I am > hoping that this one will go through in its entirety. > > My comments on yesterday's message were answered in listening to a > tape of a discussion in Feb. 06. So, I will await another > opportunity to jump in again. #94133 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Dear Sarah, James et al, Op 31-dec-2008, om 15:31 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > "Why should it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold > dear, and so on? > >Ki.mkaara.naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa? ---------- N: The Pali form on -abbaa can be translated in different ways, not only by should or must, but also by can. That makes it less severe. Nina. #94134 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Ken: Your compassionate reply is appreciated. I would assume that loving-kindness meditation, at least as it is commonly practiced, works with concepts. For instance, if I send metta to my brother, I have to have some concept of my brother, and I rely on all the conventional associations to conjur up my sense of him. For the same reason, I don't see any problem with sending metta to myself, since "myself" is a concept. If, on the other hand, if we can do metta without any concepts, then it would not make sense to send metta to myself or anyone else for that matter. But, then again, I could be entirely wrong here. metta, Alan On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:04 AM, kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Welcome to DSG. I haven't read all the replies yet, but I can never > resist a cry for help. :-) > #94135 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "'Ki.mkaara.naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa?' "Perhaps instead of translating this as: 'Why **should** it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on?' It could be translated as: 'Why ***may** it not be developed towards beings one does not hold dear,' and so on? "Warder, lesson 14, p.86: 'The optative (or 'potential') (sattamii) tense is used for any hypothetical action. It may be translated by 'should', 'would', 'may', etc.' lesson 16, p.104: 'the sense of the future passive participle is generally not simply future but rather imperative or optative: 'this must be done,' 'this should be done,' 'this ought to be done,' ALSO 'this can be done'." Scott: Since, as you note, these cannot possibly be instructions, because dhammas cannot be controlled, but rather are conventional descriptions of the various conditions which either conduce or do not conduce to the arising of this or that state, I take your 'may not' to mean 'does not' in this case. I'm not sure whether the optative mood allows for the use of 'does not'. In light of the next passage, for example, where, due to the fact that the object [nimitta.m] of mettaa was dead, mettaa did not arise and serve as condition for either access or absorption to follow, 'does not' or 'will not' might work. I don't know. Also, I would suggest that 'be developed' would be better rendered 'develops,' as this would better maintain the sense of impersonal dhammas arising and falling away according to conditions. In other words, '...why does it not develop...?' Now, I don't follow why the fact that one is dead would render the nimitta inorperative, as it were. Does this suggest that, for some reason or reasons, jhaana only reaches access or absorption with mettaa when the object of mettaa is a living being? Sincerely, Scott. #94136 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alan) - In a message dated 12/31/2008 3:04:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes with regard to the object of consciousness in cultivation of metta: The object is 'a concept of a sentient being.' So you will need to know what a concept - as distinct from a reality - is. And you will need to know how concepts are created . . . . what can make metta (adosa-cetasika) arise to take a concept as its object . . . what can make adosa *not* arise to take it as its object . . . is there any control over the arising/non-arising of adosa . . . and so on and so forth. ============================== And before that he'll need to know whether the man who wounded him was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker. He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. Oh no, sorry - that was another matter, wasn't it! With metta, Howard /Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities./ (From the Sacitta Sutta) #94137 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone nilovg H Howard, Op 31-dec-2008, om 15:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of > knowledge. ------- N: You are right, but we can see from examples (the one I gave about learning) that much learning can be contained in a citta, and it has to be one citta, and then the next one. Thus, we can at least understand it by reason. I also remember the Buddha saying in the Jatakas: not only now Devadatta wanted to kill me but also in former lives. Besides, there are many other instances where people had certain inclinations in the past which conditioned their inclinations at present. How come, when each citta falls away? Accumulations in the citta carried on. -------- Nina. #94138 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/31/2008 11:26:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: H Howard, Op 31-dec-2008, om 15:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of > knowledge. ------- N: You are right, but we can see from examples (the one I gave about learning) that much learning can be contained in a citta, and it has to be one citta, and then the next one. Thus, we can at least understand it by reason. I also remember the Buddha saying in the Jatakas: not only now Devadatta wanted to kill me but also in former lives. Besides, there are many other instances where people had certain inclinations in the past which conditioned their inclinations at present. How come, when each citta falls away? ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as I believe, though, of course, do not know, what we recall now was conditioned mainly by the recalled event at the very time of its occurrence, together with various support conditions that occurred in the past plus current "triggering" conditions. (One example of a common triggering condition is an odor.) ------------------------------------------ Accumulations in the citta carried on. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I tend to disbelieve in mind states holding an infinite, or even really huge, store of information. The information would need to consist of cetasikas, and the number of cetasikas occuring at any time is quite limited, Nina, as you know. So, I find your perspective on this matter to be problematical. ------------------------------------------- -------- Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard Emptiness *(From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality *(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94139 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Scott, James and all in this corner, > > (rather long.....) > > Brace yourselves! I think James has raised some very pertinent >questions and made some good points in this thread with regard to >the so-called instructions about what 'should' be done in the Vism. >Read on. Only Arahants do not need to do anything. Those of us who still have defilements need active countermeasures for them. Do you honestly think that by not doing something (possible only for an Arahant) one can achieve Arhatship? > --- On Mon, 29/12/08, Scott wrote: > >The Path of Purification. > > "5. What is the reason why it should not be developed at first towards > an antipathetic person and the others? To put an antipathetic person > in a dear one's place is fatiguing. Explanation from one who has practiced. One may have problems generating metta for an enemy, at first. Later on, it may be not a problem. > To put a very dearly loved friend > in a neutral person's place is fatiguing; and if the slightest > mischance befalls the friend, he feels like weeping. Attachment may arise. That is why it is not recomended at first. > Sarah: As we see, both translators, both great Pali scholars, read >the Pali here as a set of instructions about what 'should' be done. Same with anapanasati step 3 it uses word 'sikkhi'. S/he TRAINS. TRAINS! Not just passively watches as in first 2 steps of anapanasati. >And then of course there is the part which reads as though metta >should be developed to oneself first. These are all the common >understandings and as we've seen, friends believe they've attained >various jhanas in such a way. Have you done metta while sitting? What experience do you have? For some there is no place for belief. > Back to the instructions and all those 'shoulds' and 'should nots'. >Like Phil C and James, I think they are generally out of place in >the teachings. What about 150-227 vinaya rules? What about steps 3-16 of Anapanasati? What about 5,8,10 or more precepts? What about 4 right efforts, 4 bases of power? Are you pretending or not!? Dear (non-existent) God! > The teachings are not about rules, but about explanations of what >occurs, how and when different wholesome and unwholesome kinds of >consciousness arise and what has to be developed in order to lead >out of the prison. Vinaya? Uposatha day observances, daily precepts? Sila, Samadhi, panna? Noble 8 fold path? > > "5. Skilful and Unskilful Ta.nhaa > > "Although, as I have said, the common and accepted traditional view of ta.nhaa is of a state antithetical to the Buddhist spiritual life, there are some rarely commented-upon passages which indicate that ta.nhaa also has a more wholesome aspect. > > "In the A'nguttara Nikaaya we have the statement: 'he abandons ta.nhaa by means of ta.nhaa'.[27] But as to what this statement might imply, the sutta itself provides only a hint, and is in need of exegesis. Fortunately, the commentary provides some: > > "Based on the present craving [ta.nhaa] (i. e., desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root-cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantship) is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? â€" It is unwholesome. â€" Should it be pursued or not? â€" It should be pursued [sevitabbaa]. â€" Does it drag one into rebirth [pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati] or not? â€" It does not drag one into rebirth.[28] > > "As Nyanaponika adds at the end of this quote, 'Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained'." > .... > Sarah: So the suggestion is that some ta.nhaa "should be pursued ( sevitabbaa)" which clearly makes no sense either. > Dear Sarah, are you playing games? If not then I am sorry and feel compassion for you. No offense, just compassion. Buddha's path is gradual. You start giving up grossess forms of tanha until you give up the subtlest ones. You can't bypass the preliminary stages. The fact remains that before one is an Arahant, there IS doing. That doing may as well be in order to reach Arhatship at which all 'doing' ceases. Prior to the eradication of anusayas it is impossible to not do anything at all and at all the time. And oh yeah, are you reading this? Are you going to reply and when you do, If so there is doing. Are you thinking and perhaps experiencing something, perhaps planning? Reacting with craving and or aversion (even subconsciously) - then you are doing! The more skillful doing is to practice that which would remove anusayas, asavas and all doing by reaching Arhatship!!!! With metta, #94140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Hi Howard, Op 30-dec-2008, om 22:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Alex, thank you so much for posting this. In the past, I've understood > from MN 111 and MN 119 that vipassana bhavana occurs within the > jhanas taught > by the Buddha, but I didn't find the formulation there to be entirely > unambiguous in that regard. But this sutta, in saying "established > in it" (or > "attained to it"), I find the Buddha ito be unambiguously clear > with regard to this > issue. So, I find this an excellent reference! ------ N: Jhaana attainment, here the object of jhaanacitta is a specific meditation subject of jhana, and then he has to emerge from jhana to develop insight of the present reality, for example the jhanafactors or any other reality. We should not mix the two. Nina. #94141 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/31/2008 2:08:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 30-dec-2008, om 22:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Alex, thank you so much for posting this. In the past, I've understood > from MN 111 and MN 119 that vipassana bhavana occurs within the > jhanas taught > by the Buddha, but I didn't find the formulation there to be entirely > unambiguous in that regard. But this sutta, in saying "established > in it" (or > "attained to it"), I find the Buddha ito be unambiguously clear > with regard to this > issue. So, I find this an excellent reference! ------ N: Jhaana attainment, here the object of jhaanacitta is a specific meditation subject of jhana, and then he has to emerge from jhana to develop insight of the present reality, for example the jhanafactors or any other reality. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The suttas do not say that at all, Nina. In fact they imply quite the opposite - most especially the Anupada Sutta and this sutta, MN 64, that Alex kindly pointed out. In the Anupada Sutta, the ONLY jhanas that require first exiting from prior to investigation of dhammas are the 8th and 9th. The distinction is both striking and understandable. ------------------------------------------ We should not mix the two. ---------------------------------------- Howard: What I think we should do is pay careful attention to what the Buddha actually taught in the suttas. ;-) --------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard P. S. Have a wonderful New Year, Nina, you and Lodewijk both - healthy and happy! And to all the wonderful Dhamma friends on DSG, I wish you a fruitful and joyful new year, one filled with peace, wisdom, and love! *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94142 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Howard and Alan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Alan) - > > In a message dated 12/31/2008 3:04:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes with regard to the object of consciousness in > cultivation of metta: > > The object is 'a concept of a sentient being.' > > So you will need to know what a concept - as distinct from a reality - > is. And you will need to know how concepts are created . . . . what > can make metta (adosa-cetasika) arise to take a concept as its > object . . . what can make adosa *not* arise to take it as its > object . . . is there any control over the arising/non-arising of > adosa . . . and so on and so forth. > ============================== > And before that he'll need to know whether the man who wounded him was a > noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker. > The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to > him. > Oh no, sorry - that was another matter, wasn't it! -------- No, I think it was the same matter. The man in the parable wasted time learning facts that did not lead to enlightenment. But the facts I was talking to Alan about were the relevant facts (that do lead to enlightenment). Not wanting to mix metaphors, but they were leaves in the Buddha's hand as distinct from leaves in the forest. :-) Ken H #94143 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: Re: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Hi Howard, Nina and all, Interesting thing from diggin MN64, AN9.36, MN111. Any attainments up to base of nothingness have perceptions there. Only in the 8th and 9th level does one need to get out first. MN64 pali is interesting. My translation: jhanam...upassampajja(ti?) viharati =enters and abides in Jhana Viharati = [present active] Abides, dwells, lives. Present tense. So yadeva tattha hoti rupagatam vedanagatam sannagatam sankharagatam vinnanaagatam. [description of anicca dukkha anatto] ... samanupassati. (So) He (ya + eva) only whatever (tattha) THERE IN THAT PLACE (hoti) exists [ACTIVE PRESENT] connected with FORM, SENSATION, RECOGNITION, VOLITION, CONSCIOUSNESS (or form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness). samanupassati = sees, percieves [active present] The pali readings seem to say that it is happening in the present, ie in Jhana! Furthermore things connected with Rupa are present... You won't believe it, up to base of infinite consciousness! Rupa ceases in the base of nothingness according to pali sutta! http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-p.html >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Alex, thank you so much for posting this. In the past, I've #94144 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Nina) - ...alex: Furthermore things connected with Rupa are present... You won't believe it, up to base of infinite consciousness! --------------------------------------------- Howard: Rather interesting (and not just a little surprising) that rupa is included. Perhaps it is rupa known via mind door alone, i.e., via "extrasensory" perception. -------------------------------------------- Rupa ceases in the base of nothingness according to pali sutta! ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm! :-) --------------------------------------------- http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-p.html ========================= Wit metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94145 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Ken, Alan and all, > "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Alan, > No, I think it was the same matter. The man in the parable wasted > time learning facts that did not lead to enlightenment. But the > facts I was talking to Alan about were the relevant facts (that do > lead to enlightenment). > > Not wanting to mix metaphors, but they were leaves in the Buddha's > hand as distinct from leaves in the forest. :-) > > Ken H > And what "facts" do lead to awakening and are required? Sutta quotes please. "If a monk understands the meaning and the text of Dhamma- even if it be but a stanza of four lines-and be set on living in accordance with the dhamma, he may be called "one widely learnt, who knows Dhamma by heart.". AN Vol2 Book of 4s pg 185 Vi (186) Approach ===== Monks, in the moral and virtuous, right concentration perforce thrives; when there is right concentration, true knowledge and insight perforce thrive in one who has right concentration AN Book 5th iii, 19 V, III, (24) pg14 (EM hare) ===== "And how is a monk learned? His evil, unskillful qualities that are defiled, that lead to further becoming, create trouble, ripen in stress, and lead to future birth, aging, & death have streamed away. This is how a monk is learned. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#t-10 ====================== With holiday metta, #94146 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Hmm! :-) > --------------------------------------------- > > > > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-p.html > ========================= > Wit metta, > Howard What we do know about base of nothingness is that if Alara Kalama was in the correct state then you can't hear even "500 carts" passing by. Only 4 aggregates are present. Mahamoggallana could hear in "impertubable" state which means 4th Jhana to base of infinite consciousness. But in any case, when one is in impertubable, the forms do not pertube one. I suspect that "rupa" in immaterial states (are they ever called aruppa states in the suttas, not the comy?) is mental form of what is left over from 5 senses and "kasina" (if one used it). Vipassana can and is done from Jhana so there is no need to split the two paths and argue "which is better". There would be quite a contradiction if these were two different paths. Then we would have: "Satipattana as (direct/one/only) path" vs "jhana as the path to awakening" contradiction With best wishes, #94147 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi connie (and Howard and Nina), 2008/12/31 connie : > Dear Friends, > The "development" section continues: > I just wanted to thank you again for posting this material. The reason you hear little from me about it is that I find myself in agreement with Karunadasa. I agree with Howard that most of the discussions at dsg emanate from variations of understanding on the material you are quoting. What I don't understand is that only Nina has voiced any concerns. Should I assume that everyone else is actually in agreement with Karunadasa's overview? Cheers Herman #94148 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: accumulations, was: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, N: Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations. ------ Howard: Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of knowledge. ------- c: what of it? i believe it as well. perhaps not "likewise" as in "quite the same way", but in any case, we're all delusional enough to trust our own judgement. i'd say nina's is more considered than mine. no need to respond, just babbling. measuring things up with a mix of pride and what-not. thinking words. i guess if anyone wanted any more controversy, they could tell me what they think of #94102 Re: A Question of Reference. so i'll start over: it's the bricklayer story. the one where you're asked to believe you're not just the guy putting them down and laying them up but also, oughta be the one taking 'em down. sure, no sweat, hoss. ain't even no such thing as bricks. "that's outta control" why should kamma require space? not like it's cosmic dust, really. peace, connie #94149 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/31/2008 6:01:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear friends, N: Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations. ------ Howard: Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of knowledge. ------- c: what of it? i believe it as well. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: That's fine. I point it out as being an article of faith, because Nina asserted it as fact ("Citta is not a room with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can contain. Even aeons of accumulations."), and not as just a matter of belief - though she unhesitatingly agreed to it's being a matter of belief in response to my post. There are loads of things that I believe but don't know as fact, and I try to remember to make it clear in those cases that I don't know them to be so but only believe them to be so and that they are just my opinion. I think it is important to try to distinguish what is believed from what is known. In the matter of accumulations, I went on to explain why I think there is a problem with that notion. ----------------------------------------- perhaps not "likewise" as in "quite the same way", but in any case, we're all delusional enough to trust our own judgement. i'd say nina's is more considered than mine. no need to respond, just babbling. measuring things up with a mix of pride and what-not. thinking words. i guess if anyone wanted any more controversy, they could tell me what they think of #94102 Re: A Question of Reference. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Are you sure about that msg number, Connie? ----------------------------------------- so i'll start over: it's the bricklayer story. the one where you're asked to believe you're not just the guy putting them down and laying them up but also, oughta be the one taking 'em down. sure, no sweat, hoss. ain't even no such thing as bricks. "that's outta control" why should kamma require space? not like it's cosmic dust, really. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, in fact I do not think that kamma DOES require space. I don't think it is a matter of storage (or accumulation) at all, and I indicated why I thought the accumulation idea has difficulties. -------------------------------------------------- peace, connie =========================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94150 From: "derekacameron" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison derekacameron --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Anyway, I highly recommend viewing of OZ prison to start to see how > those who are in prison encounter the same suffering as those who > are not in prison. We are all in prison. James, you might enjoy the Ozay Rinpoche book about meditation and enlightenment in prison. It is called "Freedom: Escaping the Prison of the Mind." Derek. #94151 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:20 pm Subject: accumulations, was: cornerstone nichiconn dear Howard, All, i guess if anyone wanted any more controversy, they could tell me what they think of #94102 Re: A Question of Reference. --- Howard: Are you sure about that msg number, Connie? --- lol. thought i was, howard, but then again: my judgement is suspect. maybe i should just leave it, tho! lol. and what? skip the new year's fireworks? #12658 from sarah to you, actually. peace, connie #94152 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nichiconn Hey, Herman, H: Should I assume that everyone else is actually in agreement with Karunadasa's overview? i was thinking we're each in agreement with our own understanding/compromise of it, but really, it is rather boring & perhaps no one really cares. That's probably closer to it. mm, hm... but you're right, what we're after is endearing terms of agreement... the code thing. peace, man. connie #94153 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Dear Scott & all, --- On Wed, 31/12/08, Scott wrote: >Sarah: "'Ki.mkaara. naa appiyaadiisu pa.thama.m na bhaavetabbaa? ' "Perhaps instead of translating this as: 'Why **should** it not be developed first towards beings one does not hold dear, and so on?' It could be translated as: 'Why ***may** it not be developed towards beings one does not hold dear,' and so on? "Warder, lesson 14, p.86: 'The optative (or 'potential') (sattamii) tense is used for any hypothetical action. It may be translated by 'should', 'would', 'may', etc.' lesson 16, p.104: 'the sense of the future passive participle is generally not simply future but rather imperative or optative: 'this must be done,' 'this should be done,' 'this ought to be done,' ALSO 'this can be done'." .... Sarah: note "ALSO 'this can be done' (the caps were mine) ... >Scott: Since, as you note, these cannot possibly be instructions, because dhammas cannot be controlled, but rather are conventional descriptions of the various conditions which either conduce or do not conduce to the arising of this or that state, I take your 'may not' to mean 'does not' in this case. I'm not sure whether the optative mood allows for the use of 'does not'. .... Sarah: I would use 'may not' or 'can not' which the verb tense does allow for. ... Scott: >In light of the next passage, for example, where, due to the fact thatthe object [nimitta.m] of mettaa was dead, mettaa did not arise and serve as condition for either access or absorption to follow, 'does not' or 'will not' might work. I don't know. .... Sarah: Or 'can not'. (side-note to others: there ***can not** be metta to the dead, such as to Buddhaghosa or the translators of the texts, no longer alive. Metta is to ***living*** beings.) .... Scott: >Also, I would suggest that 'be developed' would be better rendered 'develops,' as this would better maintain the sense of impersonal dhammas arising and falling away according to conditions. In other words, '...why does it not develop...?' .... Sarah: I think that is exactly the meaning. To strictly follow the grammar (future passive), you'd have to say: 'why can it not be developed...?'. Still, impersonal dhammas that are responsible for the developing. And yes, as we know - the teachings are descriptive, not prescriptive, as Jon and others have pointed out often. .... >Now, I don't follow why the fact that one is dead would render the nimitta inorperative, as it were. Does this suggest that, for some reason or reasons, jhaana only reaches access or absorption with mettaa when the object of mettaa is a living being? .... Sarah: Even now, metta can only be to those around us, those we meet, those who are living. I'd like to discuss this further in due course. Metta and appreciation for the thread and discussion. Also to James and all the others for their contributions to it. Sarah ======= #94154 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/31/2008 7:20:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear Howard, All, i guess if anyone wanted any more controversy, they could tell me what they think of #94102 Re: A Question of Reference. --- Howard: Are you sure about that msg number, Connie? --- lol. thought i was, howard, but then again: my judgement is suspect. maybe i should just leave it, tho! lol. and what? skip the new year's fireworks? #12658 from sarah to you, actually. --------------------------------------------- Howard: That's from April, 2002!!!! Why, I can't possibly talk about that, Connie. The only time there is is NOW, Connie. Just ask, Ken!! (Happy New Year, Ken! :-) ------------------------------------------ peace, connie =========================== With metta and Happy New Year to all (as I leave for the evening's festivities), Howard *(From the Diamond Sutra) #94155 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:03 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn hi again, Howard, -------- Howard: and 3) The terms strike me as empty jargon. -------- any emptier than anything else? lol. it's a pattern thing... the texts go on showing the 'why/how' any given empty word could still be used indicate something - "meaning". i dunno. i have a hard enough time with my own code messing with whatever - don't even call it understanding - memorization of the texts i'm getting to grapple with cramming anyone else's in there, too... like i really have any idea what anyone, if anyone really even is, might think and yet, i did start this whole mess. i thought it might be you didn't like function because that was more agent stuff. Woof-wow, maybe i oughta stay on the porch! peace, connie #94156 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Alan, ------------ A: > I would assume that loving-kindness meditation, at least as it is commonly practiced, works with concepts. ------------ Actually, Alan, the way it is commonly practiced does not work at all. The common practice of metta meditation (so called) is motivated by ignorance and attachment. At best it gives a false impression of working. There is nothing wrong with the present reality. Whatever it is, the present reality is a suitable object for right understanding (satipatthana). Strictly speaking it is the only suitable object for right understanding. So why have ideas of causing some other reality (metta, for example) to arise in the future? It is good to read the Visuddhimagga on metta meditation - as DSG is doing at the moment. As I understand it, it is about jhana absorption, which is a highly specialised field that no one in this day and age can master. The instructions are deceptively conventional- sounding. A person could easily get the impression this was a teaching of "control over conditioned reality" in which there was a "lasting self that practised." But it isn't like that at all, of course! Ken H #94157 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Ken, Alan and all, > "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alan, >As I understand it, it is about jhana > absorption, which is a highly specialised field that no one in this > day and age can master. How do you know, or is it your belief? >The instructions are deceptively conventional- > sounding. A person could easily get the impression this was a > teaching of "control over conditioned reality" in which there was > a "lasting self that practised." But it isn't like that at all, of > course! > > Ken H The more control you try to have in meditation the less likely there to be a success. Jhana are stages of letting go! By trying to grab and control you are moving away from Jhana! With best wishes, #94158 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation egberdina Hi KenH, Here's wishing you a happy New Year. 2009/1/1 kenhowardau : > Hi Alan, > > > There is nothing wrong with the present reality. It depends on who is talking. Whatever it is, the > present reality is a suitable object for right understanding > (satipatthana). Strictly speaking it is the only suitable object for > right understanding. So why have ideas of causing some other > reality (metta, for example) to arise in the future? With the arising of satipatthana, one sees that the present reality consists only of a continuous flight from the past to the future. And that the engine for this continuous movement is craving. As long as there is craving, there is the flight towards future becoming. And that is because there is something wrong with the present, namely that it is void of self. Cheers Herman #94159 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: Unorthodox DSG teachings on Jhana. truth_aerator Hello Alan, Ken and all, > "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alan, > As I understand it, it is about jhana > absorption, which is a highly specialised field that no one in this > day and age can master. The instructions are deceptively >conventional- > sounding. A person could easily get the impression this was a > teaching of "control over conditioned reality" in which there was > a "lasting self that practised." But it isn't like that at all, of > course! > > Ken H the bhikkhu ... abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, !!!and devoid of a self!!!. [alex: SO much for the fictional self view that DSGers believe is present to one who does Jhana] Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction*1). With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.html Ken, please don't teach heterodox beliefs! #94160 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/1 connie : > why should kamma require space? not like it's cosmic dust, really. Kamma does require space. Just not mathematical space. All consciousness works within the space of intentional, goal-directed activity. This is not to suggest that consciousness is a container, or contained, but that it is an act, an on-going, self-modifying act. The Abhidhamma describes this space quite well :-) Cheers Herman #94161 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Ken: As much as I appreciate your intent to be helpful, I have to say I am approaching all of this in a different way. I have worked with teachers whom I greatly admire. When you say that what they teach, which is the "common practice of metta meditation," does not work, I have to object. To me they are living proof that it does work because they are amongst the kindness and most loving people I have ever met. Because these teachers are Burmese and Vietnamese (some things are lost in cross cultural communication), because I do not have the good fortune to have them readily accessible, and because of my own limitations, I have had to seek out clarification of issues that arisen for me by other means. This is why I have posted here. What I hope to obtain here is some clarity about some fine points with respect to what I assume is the "orthodox" practice to which I have been exposed. I am not seeking a whole new practice. I am committed to the one I am pursuing. with continuing metta, Alan #94162 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Sarah and all, 2009/1/1 sarah abbott : > Dear Scott & all, > > > And yes, as we know - the teachings are descriptive, not prescriptive, as Jon and others have pointed out often. > .... >>Now, I don't follow why the fact that one is dead would render the > nimitta inorperative, as it were. Does this suggest that, for some > reason or reasons, jhaana only reaches access or absorption with > mettaa when the object of mettaa is a living being? > .... > Sarah: Even now, metta can only be to those around us, those we meet, those who are living. This is becoming spooky. Is the suggestion that metta that has not yet arisen, somehow "knows" whether the intended recipient is dead or alive, regardless of whether I know it? If my grandmother in Holland has died, and I have not yet been informed, can I have metta toward her? Cheers Herman #94163 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:07 pm Subject: accumulations, was: cornerstone nichiconn Hi Herman, c>: why should kamma require space? not like it's cosmic dust, really. Kamma does require space. Just not mathematical space. c: ok, whatever that is... don't we start math space with the 'point'? i meant it's immaterial. "bloated citta" or "mental space" are just figures of speech. I assume I was missing Howard's points. h: All consciousness works within the space of intentional, goal-directed activity. This is not to suggest that consciousness is a container, or contained, but that it is an act, an on-going, self-modifying act. The Abhidhamma describes this space quite well :-) c: goal oriented in the sense that the cetasikas directed by cetanaa have specific functions, acts, concerned with the object of citta. yikes - self-modifying... lol. peace, connie #94164 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/31/2008 8:04:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: hi again, Howard, -------- Howard: and 3) The terms strike me as empty jargon. -------- any emptier than anything else? lol. ---------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) -------------------------------- it's a pattern thing... the texts go on showing the 'why/how' any given empty word could still be used indicate something - "meaning". i dunno. i have a hard enough time with my own code messing with whatever - don't even call it understanding - memorization of the texts i'm getting to grapple with cramming anyone else's in there, too... like i really have any idea what anyone, if anyone really even is, might think and yet, i did start this whole mess. i thought it might be you didn't like function because that was more agent stuff. -------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, no, that's not it. I guess somehow it seems too formalized to me. (Maybe after all my years of math, math logic, and theoretical computer science, I've turned away from formalisms. It's hard to say.) -------------------------------------- Woof-wow, maybe i oughta stay on the porch! ------------------------------------ Howard: ??? :-) -------------------------------- peace, connie ========================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94165 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/1 connie : > Hi Herman, > yikes - self-modifying... lol. > Yes, it's terrible, isn't it? :-) It's really a pity that the whole Pali canon would fall in a heap if words with the attan stem were removed. Attabhava, now there's a good one. Or the sumptuous atta-patilabha of DN9. How's yours holding up this festive season? :-) Cheers Herman #94166 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:06 pm Subject: Persons are The object of meditation in metta meditation abhidhammika Dear Alan, Ken, Nina, Scott, Herman, Howard, Alex and all How are you? And Happy New Year! First Thing First! Alan, the object of meditation in metta meditation is a person, which is a convention (pańńatti), a living one at that. I do not use the English term 'concept' to represent the Pali term 'pańńatti' because a concept can mean both pańńatti and paramattha dhammas. The purposes of metta meditation are many and vary from person to person. I memorised Metta Suttam alongside other Paritta Suttams (Suttams with protective values) as a novice monk at a Theravada monastery in a village in Myanmar. The purpose of this was for monks and novice monks to recite them at Paritta ceremonies in the village. Metta Suttam is also prefaced with its immediate benefits such as good sleep and good dreams (sukham supati sutto ca paapankinci na passati). As an adult layman also, I recite Metta Suttam whenever I have a few spare minutes every day and night. The ten verses of Metta Suttam are very beautiful and profound while, at the same time, being a constant reminder for us to be kind and respectful to all and every sentient beings. For some people, the purpose of metta meditation would be to attain Jhaana. The step-by-step procedures for attainment of Jhaana through metta meditation can be found in Visuddhimagga, the English translations of which are available. For some people, the purpose of metta meditation would be to reduce or eradicate anger and hatred. Again, Mettaa Bhaavanaa Kathaa in Visuddhimagga contains quotations from various Suttas and other Pali texts . For Future Buddhas (Bodhisattas), the purpose of metta meditation would be to practise and perfect Mettaa Paaramii. "sumedhapa.n.dita, tvam ito pa.t.thaaya navamam mettaapaaramimpi puureyyaasi." See Sumedhakathaa, Jaataka A.t.thakathaa. Alan wrote: "I would assume that loving-kindness meditation, at least as it is commonly practiced, works with concepts. For instance, if I send metta to my brother, I have to have some concept of my brother, and I rely on all the conventional associations to conjure up my sense of him. For the same reason, I don't see any problem with sending metta to myself, since "myself" is a concept. If, on the other hand, if we can do metta without any concepts, then it would not make sense to send metta to myself or anyone else for that matter." Alan, what you wrote above is not wrong. For metta meditation to take place and progress, persons of all kinds, albeit living conventions, are needed as the objects of meditation. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #94167 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Alan, I am glad we have been able to disagree amicably, and I hope you will find the information you are looking for. You won't get it from me, though. :-) -------------- A: > As much as I appreciate your intent to be helpful, I have to say I am approaching all of this in a different way. I have worked with teachers whom I greatly admire. When you say that what they teach, which is the "common practice of metta meditation," does not work, I have to object. To me they are living proof that it does work because they are amongst the kindness and most loving people I have ever met. --------------- You are not alone in wanting to be a kind-hearted person. Many DSG members share that ambition. Others of us, however, are trying to understand that kind-heartedness is just a fleeting, conditioned dhamma. Ultimately, there are no people who have kind-heartedness or any other characteristic - there are only dhammas. Ken H > Because these teachers are Burmese and Vietnamese (some things are > lost in cross cultural communication), because I do not have the good > fortune to have them readily accessible, and because of my own > limitations, I have had to seek out clarification of issues that > arisen for me by other means. This is why I have posted here. What I > hope to obtain here is some clarity about some fine points with > respect to what I assume is the "orthodox" practice to which I have > been exposed. I am not seeking a whole new practice. I am committed > to the one I am pursuing. > #94168 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------------- H: > Here's wishing you a happy New Year. ------------- Thanks, Herman, and the same to you. ---------------------- KH: > > There is nothing wrong with the present reality. >> H: > It depends on who is talking. -------------- Or it depends on what is meant. In this case I meant 'for the purposes of satipatthana.' ------------------------- <. . .> H: > With the arising of satipatthana, one sees that the present reality consists only of a continuous flight from the past to the future. ------------------------- A "flight?" That doesn't sound right to me. The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is! ------------------------------- H: > And that the engine for this continuous movement is craving. As long as there is craving, there is the flight towards future becoming. And that is because there is something wrong with the present, namely that it is void of self. -------------------------------- Conditioned reality is always devoid of self. So too is nibbana. That is the way things are. It's the Dhamma! There is nothing wrong with the Dhamma. :-) Ken H #94169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation nilovg Dear Alan, good to see you here. Op 31-dec-2008, om 5:33 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > , when we go > into Jhana what is the object? I looked up Jhana on the access to > insight website: "Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness > and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and > absorbed in the chosen object of attention." So when we enter into > jhana through loving-kindness meditation, what is the object? --------- N: The mettacitta that has grown great, that is, with unlimited metta, is the object of jhaana. As you will see further on in the Vis. (Scott will post this), jhaana is attained when the barriers are broken, that is, metta is truly unlimited, for all beings. No thought of a particular person, which is the beginning of the development. As you have seen from the extracts posted thus far, the emphasis is all the time on the mettacitta. Right understanding of one's citta is indispensable. That is why the characteristic of metta is explained and the danger of taking selfish affection for metta. We are used to thinking of the effect of our actions on other people, but through the Dhamma we learn to know our cittas. Metta citta develops more and more until it is unlimited metta. Nina. #94170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Dear Scott, Op 31-dec-2008, om 16:38 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Now, I don't follow why the fact that one is dead would render the > nimitta inorperative, as it were. Does this suggest that, for some > reason or reasons, jhaana only reaches access or absorption with > mettaa when the object of mettaa is a living being? ---------- N: I find helpful the simile where metta is compared to a mother's love for her child. She will do everything for his welfare, caring for it, being concerned for it. We can think of someone who has passed away with respect, appreciation and gratefulness for all his/her good qualities that appeared during life. Then the citta is kusala citta. It certainly is a way of kusala. We can also transfer merit, that is, when doing a good deed dedicating it to him/her. We do not know about the plane of existence where he/she is, but if the person to whom we extend merit is not able to receive it it will be for the benefit of others, as is explained. These two examples can clarify the difference with metta for someone who is alive: helping, caring and true concern for the welfare of this person. To conclude, I quote from my 'Brahmavihaaras': ****** Nina. #94171 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-jan-2009, om 0:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Well, in fact I do not think that kamma DOES require space. I don't > think it is a matter of storage (or accumulation) at all, and I > indicated why I > thought the accumulation idea has difficulties. ------- N: Perhaps it is the term you fall over. Here is another point: in the Suttas and Abhidhamma there is a description of the latent tendencies. They are eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment. Not all of them at the first stage. Where are they? Where else but in the citta, accumulated. I do not believe in a storage citta, but different tendencies are 'passed on' from moment to moment and all the time they are added on. How this exactly happens we cannot know, but it does happen. I say: I believe, since I cannot directly realize this truth. But why deny what is in the Tipitaka? Nina. #94172 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Hi Howard, thanks for your good wishes, and I wish you and your family all the best. Op 31-dec-2008, om 20:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I think we should do is pay careful attention to what the Buddha > actually taught in the suttas. ;-) -------- N: Absolutely. We should consult at least three different translations of a sutta, not only ATI but also PTS and Ven. Bodhi. Preferably also the Pali, but this is not always easy. When we read suttas and it is not expressively mentioned that someone emerged from jhaana and then developed insight, we should keep in mind that a skillful person can flash in and out of jhaana very quickly. See Diighanaka sutta, where Saariputta was fanning the Buddha and also in between attained jhaana, but this is explained I believe in the Co. You may not accept that. ---------- > N: Jhaana attainment, here the object of jhaanacitta is a specific > meditation subject of jhana, and then he has to emerge from jhana to > develop insight of the present reality, for example the jhanafactors > or any other reality. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The suttas do not say that at all, Nina. In fact they imply quite the > opposite - most especially the Anupada Sutta and this sutta, MN 64, > that Alex > kindly pointed out. In the Anupada Sutta, the ONLY jhanas that > require first > exiting from prior to investigation of dhammas are the 8th and 9th. > The > distinction is both striking and understandable. > ------------------------------------------ > N: I looked up B.B. translations and notes. You read that after cessation enlightenment ws attained. Cessation can only be reached by anaagamis and arahats who have developed jhaana and insight, thus not without insight. B.B.'s note 1052 (on p, 1316 of the Middle Length Disdourses), quoting the Co: And after each realised jhaana stage it is said: Why a problem? Sutta 64, note B.B. 655 (p. 1266): < This passage shows the development of insight (vipassanaa) upon a basis of serenity (samatha), using the jhaana on which the practice of insight is based as the object of insight contemplation...> I quoted this before to you. Why is it a problem to emerge from jhana and then apply insight? Nina. #94173 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:07 am Subject: A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas robmoult Hi Nina & All, About 18 months ago, I spent a week as an 8-preceptor with a group of monks in a jungle sanctuary about two hours drive away from my home in Kuala Lumpur. To show my appreciation, I gave the abbot a copy of Khun Sujin's "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" which had just recently been translated by Nina. Two days ago, the abbot was in Kuala Lumpur and I invited him to my new apartment for dana. A number of devotees who lived close to the abbot's sanctuary accompanied the abbot to my apartment. One of these devotees approached me after the dana and told me that she had read every page of "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" and had made copious notes. She said that she was particularly thrilled with Chapter 34, "Dialogue on Vipassana - The Natural Way of Development". She said that she had discussed the ideas from this chapter extensively with a number of monks. I excused myself momentarily, went into another room and said to her, "I just happen to have a spare copy of that book and I would like to give it to you." Nina, she was so happy that she started crying! Perhaps Nina or Sarah may want to share Chapter 34 of the text with the DSG group in sections. If this lady and the monks found this chapter to be of so much interest and value, perhaps it would also be of interest to the DSG group. It may have alreay been posted before, but a repeat of such good material would not be wasted. Metta, Rob M :-) #94174 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:34 am Subject: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 1 robmoult Hi All, I recently spoke at a very interesting Buddhist conference with a theme of "Understanding Death and Beyond". Part 1 of the conference covered topics such as: - Out-of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experience - Past Life Experience through Regression Hypnosis and Children's Spontaneous Recall - Psychics' Descriptions of Related Paranormal Phenomena - Related Paranormal Phenomena Perceivable through Scientific Means Part 2 of the conference included various Buddhist interpretations: - Perspective of Early Buddhism (Nikâya-Âgama) by Ven Sujâto Bhikkhu - Perspective of Orthodox Theravâda by me - Perspective of Chinese Mahâyâna Buddhism by Dr. Fa Qing (ex-monk with a PhD in Buddhist studies) - Perspective of Tibetan Bardo Teachings by Ralph Forde - Modern Scholars' Perspective of Buddhist Texts and Interpretations Cited Above by Dr. Max Deeg I will be sharing my paper in sections with the DSG group. A few days ago, I posted an early version of my paper in the files section of DSG and I have now updated it with the final version. ===== The speakers in Part 1 have been presented evidence drawn from direct experience suggesting that there is some form of existence beyond the gross physical body, irrespective of whether the gross physical body is still alive or not (see Note below). If such an entity survives physical death, it is only natural for the rational human mind to regard it as a "spirit" and to invest it with speculative metaphysical attributes, such as immortality and permanence. This idea can easily give rise to the notion of the "soul" as the essence of a human being. Is this an immortal, permanent soul and how does this fit in with the Buddhist notion of anatta? If death is followed immediately by rebirth, as the orthodox Theravadin asserts, how can the phenomena of existence beyond the gross physical body be explained? Considering cellular memory and the marvelous intelligence behind the intricate physiological processes that keep us alive even without our being conscious of them, is it not possible that some (if not all) of the five aggregates (khandhas) of a sentient being could have multiple, simultaneous, coexistence? Could this existence beyond the gross physical body actually be another manifestation of the five khandhas? In other words, regardless of what it is termed (soul, Higher Self, superconsciousness, atman, spirit, etc.) could it still be subject to conditionality and therefore also exhibit the universal characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta? Do the accounts drawn from regression hypnosis and children's spontaneous recall fit into Theravada scriptural paradigms? If they do not, how can these accounts be reconciled with Theravada teachings so that Theravadins can best make use of this understanding to assist them in their inevitable encounter with death? Note: In this sentence we are using "death" as defined by the medical establishment which is based on what our instruments can currently measure. This definition of "death" does not correlate exactly with the Buddhist definition of "death". ===== Comments are welcome! Metta, Rob M :-) #94175 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/1 robmoult : > Hi All, > > I recently spoke at a very interesting Buddhist conference with a > theme of "Understanding Death and Beyond". > I don't want to detract from your series, but I do want to comment on it. I will do so in this thread. > Part 1 of the conference covered topics such as: > - Out-of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experience > - Past Life Experience through Regression Hypnosis and Children's > Spontaneous Recall > - Psychics' Descriptions of Related Paranormal Phenomena > - Related Paranormal Phenomena Perceivable through Scientific Means > > Part 2 of the conference included various Buddhist interpretations: > - Perspective of Early Buddhism (Nikâya-Âgama) by Ven Sujâto Bhikkhu > - Perspective of Orthodox Theravâda by me > - Perspective of Chinese Mahâyâna Buddhism by Dr. Fa Qing (ex-monk > with a PhD in Buddhist studies) > - Perspective of Tibetan Bardo Teachings by Ralph Forde > - Modern Scholars' Perspective of Buddhist Texts and Interpretations > Cited Above by Dr. Max Deeg > I have a friend who has a friend we affectionately know as Bruce da Goose. Bruce is not a Buddhist, and doesn't know Buddhists exist. Bruce has had all the experiences you are going to call into evidence. He uses this white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. Cheers Herman #94176 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:00 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "8.First of all it should be developed only towards oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering' or 'May I keep myself free from enmity, affliction, anxiety, and live happily'." The Path of Purity. "Love should first be developed for oneself time and again thus: 'May I be well, free from misery,' or 'May I keep myself without enmity, without ill-will, untroubled, well!'" Sabbapa.thama.m pana 'aha.m sukhito homi niddukkho' ti vaa, 'avero abyaapajjo aniigho sukhii attaana.m pariharaamii' ti vaa eva.m punappuna.m attaniyeva bhaavetabbaa. Sincerely, Scott. #94177 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Nina (Happy New Year!), Regarding: N: I find helpful the simile where metta is compared to a mother's love for her child...We can also transfer merit, that is, when doing a good deed dedicating it to him/her. We do not know about the plane of existence where he/she is, but if the person to whom we extend merit is not able to receive it it will be for the benefit of others, as is explained." Scott: Yes, pu~n~na and pattidaana. If this kusala that is dedicated to the idea of the being in another realm, and, I would guess, if kusala arises within that being's stream as conditioned by an awareness of the pu~n~na so dedicated then this is 'transfer' of merit. I'd suspect, though, that, like the whole idea of 'suffusing' the world with mettaa, there is a highly metaphorical element to these conventional expression. In other words, I think it would be a matter of magical thinking to consider that something literal - of a material nature like 'love energy' or 'merit energy' called 'mettaa' or 'pu~n~na' - sails out of one place and goes to another. I'd have to consider that these both have to do with giving (daana) in some way and in the development of kusala. In the former case of, say, a deva, kusala would have to have truly arisen to condition the dedicated pu~n~na to be 'transferred', and kusala would truly have to arise for that one to whom it is dedicated in order for their to have been a 'transfer' of pu~n~na. In the case of the merit-sender and the merit-receiver, pa~n~naa would have to recognise kusala, I'd think. So I'd say, no magic, just kusala (for two distinct beings in different planes) but we are talking only of the development of kusala. N: "These two examples can clarify the difference with metta for someone who is alive...but when we develop satipa.t.thaana pa~n~naa shall know the difference between the characteristics of mettaa and of aversion...If one does not normally develop satipa.t.thaana, one does not know the characteristics of realities which are appearing one at a time as only naama dhammas and ruupa dhammas...if someone knows the characteristics of realities that are appearing just as they are, and he knows the characteristic of naama dhamma as just naama, not a being or a person, and the characteristic of ruupa dhamma as just ruupa, not a being or a person, his endurance and patience will increase and also other kinds of kusala will further develop." Scott: When mettaa (adosa) arises and is known as such (satipa.t.thaana), then and only then, can it be said that one develops mettaa. Notions of 'a person' developing this or that or radiating this or that to 'others' are only spoken of by convention and are not to be misunderstood. Sincerely, Scott. #94178 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/1/2009 3:38:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: A "flight?" That doesn't sound right to me. The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is! ============================== Fitting, I think, that my first post of the year be to you, Ken! :-) You write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!" And this is absolutely true! I don't see how anyone who pays attention to things could disagree with it -seriously! And yet ... . This "and yet," I think, is a big deal, and I truly find it to be paradoxical: Time and event are inseparable, even maybe indistinguishable. (Maybe that's just a slogan, though - so let that go.) Here's the thing: There is only now ... true. But what occurs "now" changes "all the time". But change means passage of time. All that ever was is no longer present now, and this "now" is unstoppable, ungraspable, without duration, and, in fact, seems to be actually both something and yet nothing at all. We have a mental picture of "now" as a window through which is seen a stream of passing phenomena, as if "now" stands still and its "content" changes. But "now" is not a widow or portal. For the changing "content" is the very passage of time. There really is no window. Our everyday terminology is what seems to come to our rescue: We can properly speak of what "now is happening," what "previously happened," and what "may happen." When we say that there is only "now," one has to ask "When?" And the answer is "Now!" But that is because we *always* answer that same way, even though what occurs "now" CONSTANTLY CHANGES! If you can see the truth of anything that I've written here besides my initial agreement with you when you write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!", then perhaps you can agree that the matter is not simple and that this matter of time and of "now" is an example, an important one, I think, of the inability of thought to grasp reality without paradoxical distortion. With timely metta, Howard *(From the Diamond Sutra) #94179 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...Bruce has had all the experiences you are going to call into evidence. He uses this white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana." Scott: I sincerely hope that you might resolve your great dilemna vis-a-vis the third and fourth Noble Truths, Herman. I think there is a misunderstanding here of the nature of ruupa and its relation to naama. Consider Dhammasa"nga.ni (pp. 153-157): "[Book II Material Form (ruupaka.nda.m) Introductory] "[583] Which are the states that are indeterminate? The results of good and bad states taking effect in the universe of sense, in that of form, in that of formless, or in [the life] which is Unincluded, and as connected with the khandhas of feeling, perception, synergies, and consciousness; as well as those inoperative states which are neither good, nor bad, nor the result of kamma; all form, moreover; and [finally] Unconditioned Element - these are the states that are indeterminate. "[584]In this connexion, what is 'all form' (sabbha.m ruupa.m)? The four great phenomena and that form which is derived from the four great phenomena - that is what is called 'all form'... "[Chapter I Exposition of [Material] Form under Single Concepts (ekakaniddeso).] "[595] All form is that which is not root-condition, not the concomitant of a root-condition, disconnected with root-condition, causally related, conditioned, endowed with form, mundane, co-intoxicant, of the Fetters, of the Ties, of the Floods, of the Bonds, of the Hindrances, infected, of the Graspings, belonging to the Vices, indeterminate, void of mental objects, not a mental property, disconnected with thought, neither moral result nor productive of it, not vicious yet belonging to the Vices, not applied and sustained thinking, not 'applied but only sustained thinking', neither 'applied nor sustained thinking', not 'accompanied by zest', not 'accompanied by ease', not 'accompanied by indifference', not something capable of being got rid of either by insight or by cultivation, not that the cause of which may be got rid of either by insight or by cultivation, neither tending to, nor away from, the accumulation involving rebirth, belonging neither to studentship nor to that which is beyond studentship, of small account, related to the universe of sense, not related to the universe of form, not to that of the formless, included, not of the Unincluded, not [something entailing] fixed [retribution], unavailing for [ethical] guidance, apparent, cognizable by the six modes of cognition, impermanent, subject to decay. Such is the category of Form considered by way of single attributes." Tattha katama.m sabba.m ruupa.m? Cattaaro ca mahaabhuutaa, catunna~nca mahaabhuutaana.m upaadaaya ruupa.m â€" ida.m vuccati sabba.m ruupa.m. Sabba.m ruupa.m na hetu, ahetuka.m, hetuvippayutta.m, sappaccaya.m , sa"khata.m, ruupa.m [ruupiya.m (sii.)], lokiya.m, saasava.m, sa.myojaniya.m, ganthaniya.m, oghaniya.m, yoganiya.m, niivara.niya.m, paraama.t.tha.m, upaadaaniya.m, sa.mkilesika.m, abyaakata.m, anaaramma.na.m, acetasika.m, cittavippayutta.m, nevavipaakanavipaakadhammadhamma.m, asa.mkilitthasa.mkilesika.m, na savitakkasavicaara.m, na avitakkavicaaramatta.m, avitakkaavicaara.m, na piitisahagata.n, na sukhasahagata.m, na upekkhaasahagata.m, neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabba.m, neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabbahetuka.m, neva aacayagaami na apacayagaami, nevasekkhanaasekkha.m, paritta.m, kaamaavacara.m, na ruupaavacara.m, na aruupaavacara.m, pariyaapanna.m, no apariyaapanna.m, aniyata.m, aniyyaanika.m, uppanna.m, chahi vi~n~naa.nehi vi~n~neyya.m, anicca.m, jaraabhibhuuta.m. Eva.m ekavidhena ruupasa"ngaho. Sincerely, Scott. #94180 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/1/2009 5:09:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: I quoted this before to you. Why is it a problem to emerge from jhana and then apply insight? Nina. ============================== Nina, somehow you seem to be either missing or side-stepping my point: I had written "In the Anupada Sutta, the ONLY jhanas that require first exiting from prior to investigation of dhammas are the 8th and 9th. The distinction is both striking and understandable." Please look over that sutta, Nina, to see for yourself what I am pointing out. Of course it makes sense that one must exit the 8th & 9th jhanas before investigation of dhammas is possible, precisely because perception/recognition is missing in those two jhanas! It is from those jhanas, and ONLY those, that Sariputta "emerged mindful" to investigate dhammas. In all the lower jhanas, sa~n~na occurs, and no emergence from the jhana is mentioned prior to examining the features of the jhanic state. This contrast is striking, Nina. Nina, you wrote the following above, quoting Bhikkhu Bodhi and adding comments of your own: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ And after each realised jhaana stage it is said: Why a problem? -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But, Nina, READ THE SUTTA, MN 111! This is not so!! It is ONLY the 8th & 9th jhanas for which emergence precedes contemplation!! Facts are facts, Nina, and not otherwise. Let me spell the matter out quoting the sutta directly: With regard to the 7th jhana, for example, there is said the following in the sutta: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of Infinite Consciousness, aware that there is ‘Nothing’, Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of ‘Nothingness’. 16] "And the states in the base of ‘Nothingness’ - the perception of the base of ‘Nothingness’ and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness, the enthusiasm, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one as they occurred; know to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states not having been, come into to being; having been, they vanish.’ Regarding these states he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this’ , and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Note that it is said that "these states were defined by him one by one AS THEY OCCURRED [emphasis mine]; know to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared." But with regard to the 8th jhana, a clear break-off, the following is said: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of ‘Nothingness’ Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of neither perception nor non-perception. 18] "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished. Regarding those states, he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this,’ and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Note that only HERE (and for the 9th jhana), as opposed to the preceding, it is said "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, ..." With metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94181 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Nina: I am very happy to see your reply to my post. Just to be clear (I am very concrete): > jhaana is attained when the barriers are broken, that is, metta is > truly unlimited, for all beings. No thought of a particular person, > which is the beginning of the development. A: The object of mettacitta is all beings? > N: The mettacitta that has grown great, that is, with unlimited > metta, is the object of jhaana. A: The object of jhaana is mettacitta? with metta, Alan #94182 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Persons are The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Suan: Thank you for your clarifications. > Alan, the object of meditation in metta meditation is a person, > which is a convention (pańńatti), a living one at that. > I do not use the English term 'concept' to represent the Pali > term 'pańńatti' because a concept can mean both pańńatti and > paramattha dhammas. A: I slipped into using the term 'concept' and realize now that 'convention' would be more correct. Thank you. With metta, Alan #94183 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:51 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear Friends, Nyanaponika continues: Though the rhythm of matter is so much slower than that of mind, the lifetime of a single material unit is a little within the range of our direct perception as that of a mental unit. Nevertheless, it is owing to that increase in duration that such continua of inorganic matter as are directly perceptible produce the impression of relative constancy. And this impression of the constancy of matter, linked with the innate human longing for permanency, not only allows the poet's mind, so sensitive to the fleetingness of short-lived things, to find a spell of soothing rest in the contemplation of the "eternal hills," but is also responsible for theories about the primacy of matter and for belief in an objective and abiding material world. The probability that this our earth may still exist long after all human, animal, and plant life has banished is different only in degree, but not in essence, from such evident facts as the work may outlive the worker, an effect its cause, etc. . While matter exists on a time level - or better, changes in a time rhythm - slower than that of mind, and comparable to the infrared end of the spectrum, there are also vibrations corresponding to ultraviolet rays, which are so completely beyond the range of average human consciousness that, in the Buddhist psychology of meditative experience, they are only spoken of in terms of negation and exclusion similar to Nibbaana. We refer here to the medittive attainment of cessation (nirodha-samaapatti), a term that signifies the temporary cessation of perception and feeling (sa~n~naa-vedayita-nirodha). There are also gradual transitions to that highly abstract ultraconscious state, just as there are between any two points in the round of sa'msaara. These transitions are the four formless absorptions (aaruppa). Here the rate of mental vibrations is already so intensified as to suspend contact with the world of matter and its special time rhythm. The suspension can take place either in the brief periods of meditative absorption in the case of a human meditator, or in an inconceivably long life span in the case of a rebirth in the formless worlds (aruupaloka). In this context it is worth noting that what is now an exceptional meditative experience may, if the affinity with that experience is sufficiently strong, become the normal status in a new existence. Any peripheral events may become the center, and the exceptions the rule, of anew lif in a higher or lower sphere. The territories of the sa'msaaric spheres have fluid boundaries. "Neighbouring" spheres may widely overlap. Human life, for example, is in certain respects regulated by laws pertaining to the realm of matter and to the vegetble and animal kingdoms. The human mind requires the regular tidal movement between the peak of its strenuous activity during the day and its subsidence into the subconsciousness of sleep. The interpenetration with higher regions, surpassing averge human consciousness, is much less extensive and much rarer. There are, indeed, some rare contacts with the realm of higher spirituality and intensified consciousness: in meditation, religious inspiration, artistic intuition, etc.; but they are followed only too quickly by a relapse into the relative dullness of everyday consciousness. peace, connie #94184 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:55 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: Another common definition of dhamma is that which bears its own characteristic, salakkhana.51 Since salakkhana is used in the same sense as sabhava, this definition carries more or less the same implications. That each dhamma has its own characteristic is illustrated with reference to colour, which is one of the secondary material elements. Although colour is divisible as blue, yellow, etc., the characteristic peculiar to all varieties of colour is their visibility (sanidassanata).52 Hence it is also called paccatta-lakkhana, individual characteristic.53 As in the case of dhamma and sabhava, so in the case of dhamma and salakkhana, too, their duality is only a convenient assumption made for the purpose of definition. For it is a case of attributing duality to that which has no duality.54 And since it is only an attribution it is based on interpretation (kappanasiddha)55 and not on actuality (bhavasiddha).56 Hence the definition of earth element (pathavi-dhatu) as "that which has" the characteristic of solidity (kakkha"atta-lakkhana)57 is said to be invalid from an ultimate point of view, because of the assumed duality between the earth element and its characteristic. The correct definition is the one which states that solidity itself is the earth element, for this does not assume a distinction between the characteristic and what is characterized thereby.58 As the own-characteristic (salakkhana) represents the characteristic peculiar to each dhamma, the universal characteristics (samanna-lakkhana) are the characteristics common to all the dhammas. If the former is individually predicable, the latter are universally predicable.59 Their difference goes still further. As the own-characteristic is another name for the dhamma, it represents a fact having an objective counterpart. It is not a product of mental construction (kappana)60 but an actual datum of objective existence and as such an ultimate datum of sense experience. On the other hand, what is called universal characteristic has no objective existence because it is a product of mental construction, the synthetic function of mind, and is superimposed on the ultimate data of empirical existence. On this interpretation, the three characteristics of conditioned reality (sankhata-lakkhana) -- namely, origination (uppada), cessation (vaya), and the alteration of that which exists (thitassa annathatta) -- are universal characteristics (samanna-lakkhana). Because they have no objective reality they are not elevated to the status of dhammas. If they were to be so elevated, that would undermine the very foundation of the dhamma theory. If, for instance, origination (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga)61 are postulated as real and discrete entities, then it would be necessary to postulate another set of secondary characteristics to account for their own origination, subsistence, and dissolution, thus resulting in an infinite regress (anavatthana).62 This is the significance of the commentarial observation: "It is not correct to assume that origination originates, decay decays, and cessation ceases because such an assumption leads to the fallacy of infinite regress." 63 The difference between the particular characteristic and the universal characteristic is also shown in the way they become knowable (neyya), for while the particular characteristic is known as a datum of sense perception (paccakkha-nana), the universal characteristic is known through a process of inference (anumananana).64 {61. These are the three phases of a momentary dhamma, according to the Theravada version of the theory of moments. ... to be continued, connie #94185 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Dear Herman, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > Bruce has had all the experiences you are going to call into >Evidence.He uses this white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for >anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. So? Just because you can make someone hallucinate a pie in front of them, this doesn't mean that "pies do not exist"! It just means that you can simulate the experience by other means. Just because there can be a mirage of water, it doesn't mean that water doesn't exist at all, somewhere. With best wishes for 2009! #94186 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Alex (and Herman), Regarding: A: "So? Just because you can make someone hallucinate a pie in front of them, this doesn't mean that "pies do not exist"! It just means that you can simulate the experience by other means. Just because there can be a mirage of water, it doesn't mean that water doesn't exist at all, somewhere." Scott: Neither 'pies' nor 'water' exist - the problem misunderstanding pa~n~natti again. Sincerely, Scott. #94187 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Dear Scott, > > Scott: Neither 'pies' nor 'water' exist - the problem >misunderstanding pa~n~natti again. > HA-HA-HA. The point of my argument was that just because something can be duplicated through drugs, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Oh, and water does exist! How else do you quench your thirst. Beam me up Scotty! #94188 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex & Herman) - In a message dated 1/1/2009 1:41:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Alex (and Herman), Regarding: A: "So? Just because you can make someone hallucinate a pie in front of them, this doesn't mean that "pies do not exist"! It just means that you can simulate the experience by other means. Just because there can be a mirage of water, it doesn't mean that water doesn't exist at all, somewhere." Scott: Neither 'pies' nor 'water' exist - the problem misunderstanding pa~n~natti again. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That nonexistence refrain aside, what was the issue was not "existence" but the question of whether various unusual experiences are hallucinations that are chemically induced or whether they are genuine events. The Buddha certainly spoke of psychic phenomena including out-of-body experience, divine eye, hearing at great distances, levitation, etc. (With regard to the levitation the Buddha spoke of, BTW, it is a *body* that levitates, which means that the body "exists"! The mode of its existence is another matter. It's empty nature; i.e., it's complete dependence on conditions and on component phenomena all of which are also empty of core and substance, is another story.) ----------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ======================== With metta, Howard Emptiness *(From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality *(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94189 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "That nonexistence refrain aside, what was the issue was not 'existence' but the question of whether various unusual experiences are hallucinations that are chemically induced or whether they are genuine events." Scott: I don't set aside the question of realities, Howard. This is one of the most disputed concerns on the list. And as far as 'unusual experiences' go, I've said before that these are neither to be trusted nor pursued. What jhaana and 'meditation' enthusiasts chase after and take for jhaana is, in my opinion, very likely a panoply of 'unusual experiences' nowhere near jhaana, and of no account. The Buddha doesn't speak of 'chemicals' and to consider 'chemically-produced' anything, in relation to the Dhamma, is just not possible. Dhamma and the current state of the evolving conceptual realm of neuroscience have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. As I've enthused at other times: Science schmience. Brain is meat. Eclecticism is for musical tastes, not Dhamma. H: "The Buddha certainly spoke of psychic phenomena including out-of-body experience, divine eye, hearing at great distances, levitation, etc. (With regard to the levitation the Buddha spoke of, BTW, it is a *body* that levitates, which means that the body 'exists'! The mode of its existence is another matter. It's empty nature; i.e., it's complete dependence on conditions and on component phenomena all of which are also empty of core and substance, is another story.)" Scott: The pursuit of these 'psychic phenomena' is unnecessary. 'Bodies' do not 'exist.' The rest - about emptiness and that - is a common litany chanted by a few. Sincerely, Scott. #94190 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas nilovg Dear Rob M, Thank you for your account of the person who appreciated Survey so much. I will be glad to repost here Ch 34. If you have the address of the abbot's place in Kuala Lumpur we would like to send him more books, such as my book on Rupas that will appear this year. Or perfections. Nina. Op 1-jan-2009, om 13:07 heeft robmoult het volgende geschreven: > She said that she was particularly thrilled with Chapter > 34, "Dialogue on Vipassana - The Natural Way of Development". She > said that she had discussed the ideas from this chapter extensively > with a number of monks. > > I excused myself momentarily, went into another room and said to > her, "I just happen to have a spare copy of that book and I would > like to give it to you." Nina, she was so happy that she started > crying! > > Perhaps Nina or Sarah may want to share Chapter 34 of the text with > the DSG group in sections. If this lady and the monks found this > chapter to be of so much interest and value, perhaps it would also be > of interest to the DSG group. It may have alreay been posted before, > but a repeat of such good material would not be wasted. #94191 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...The point of my argument was that just because something can be duplicated through drugs, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist." Scott: Yes, Alex, your point was well-articulated. I just think it is completely wrong. No need to repeat it. Sincerely, Scott. #94192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison nilovg Hi Derek, good to see you again. You used to be very active with all your questions. After that you got busy with your studies. I hope they went well. Nina Op 31-dec-2008, om 16:00 heeft derekacameron het volgende geschreven: > James, you might enjoy the Ozay Rinpoche book about meditation and > enlightenment in prison. It is called "Freedom: Escaping the Prison of > the Mind." Derek. #94193 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Hi Herman and Connie, Op 31-dec-2008, om 22:42 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > What I don't understand is that only Nina has voiced any > concerns -------- N: BUt today is a good explanation about sabhava, and the general characteristics. It is a bit longish for me and I would like it less abstract, but it is stuff for thinking over. Nina. #94194 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, Alex gave some Pali but I will look again at the suttas. But now I am quite absorbed (:-)) in the Sangiitisutta the bases of meritorious actions, for a few days. I have to finish this first. Nina. Op 1-jan-2009, om 16:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Note that only HERE (and for the 9th jhana), as opposed to the > preceding, it > is said "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he > contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, ..." #94195 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...The point of my argument was that just because something > can be duplicated through drugs, it doesn't mean that it doesn't > exist." > > Scott: Yes, Alex, your point was well-articulated. I just think it is > completely wrong. No need to repeat it. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > And in what way is it wrong, if I may ask? Or do I have to take your statement on faith? #94196 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Hi Scott, Howard and all, > "Scott" wrote: > > What jhaana and 'meditation' enthusiasts chase after and take for > jhaana is, in my opinion, very likely a panoply of 'unusual > experiences' nowhere near jhaana, and of no account. How do you know? Do you think that armchair understanding = the real thing? Fogget about it >The Buddha doesn't speak of 'chemicals' and to consider 'chemically- >produced' anything, in relation to the Dhamma, is just not possible. How do you know? > Dhamma and the current state of the evolving conceptual realm of > neuroscience have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. As >I've enthused at other times: > > Science schmience. > > Brain is meat. > > Eclecticism is for musical tastes, not Dhamma. So you also believe that Earth is flat, that sun rotates around the earth, that some cities like savatthi existed for 100,000s of years and cow urine is one of the best medicine available? #94197 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:31 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Alex, Apologies for the delay and thanks for the quotes! ---------------------- A: > And what "facts" do lead to awakening and are required? Sutta quotes please. "If a monk understands the meaning and the text of Dhamma- even if it be but a stanza of four lines-and be set on living in accordance with the dhamma, he may be called "one widely learnt, who knows Dhamma by heart.". AN Vol2 Book of 4s pg 185 Vi (186) Approach ----------------------- Can you think of a conventional example when that sort of thing might happen? I am thinking of a surgeon who has lost his memory of surgery and just needs a vital snippet of information to bring it all back. OK that's a lame example, but the point is that all the hard work of learning Dhamma and developing paramis is done over many, many lifetimes. When, in the current lifetime, a few words of Dhamma are heard, understanding can arise immediately. But that is only provided that the hard work has been done. ------------------------- A: >" Monks, in the moral and virtuous, right concentration perforce thrives; when there is right concentration, true knowledge and insight perforce thrive in one who has right concentration AN Book 5th iii, 19 V, III, (24) pg14 (EM hare) ------------------------- Another good one thanks! But I fear you are thinking right concentration arises before right understanding. As has been explained to you many times at DSG *with sutta quotes* that is not true. Right Concentration and Right Understanding - along with the other Path factors - always arise together, and Right Understanding is always their leader. ----------------------------------- A: > "And how is a monk learned? His evil, unskillful qualities that are defiled, that lead to further becoming, create trouble, ripen in stress, and lead to future birth, aging, & death have streamed away. This is how a monk is learned. ------------------------------------------------ Thanks again for the quotes. As people have often tried to impress upon you, we really want to hear your understanding of them. There is no dispute over the quotes themselves. They are not your exclusive preserve. :-) ----------------- A: > With holiday metta, ----------------- Mmmm . . . holiday metta! :-) Ken H #94198 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/1/2009 2:24:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "That nonexistence refrain aside, what was the issue was not 'existence' but the question of whether various unusual experiences are hallucinations that are chemically induced or whether they are genuine events." Scott: I don't set aside the question of realities, Howard. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I do at the moment, because it is not the matter at hand. ---------------------------------------- This is one of the most disputed concerns on the list. And as far as 'unusual experiences' go, I've said before that these are neither to be trusted nor pursued. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't pursue them. ---------------------------------------- What jhaana and 'meditation' enthusiasts chase after and take for jhaana is, in my opinion, very likely a panoply of 'unusual experiences' nowhere near jhaana, and of no account. --------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha was a jhana and meditation enthusiast. And you have no basis in knowing what anyone else experiences, Scott. --------------------------------------- The Buddha doesn't speak of 'chemicals' and to consider 'chemically-produced' anything, in relation to the Dhamma, is just not possible. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Do you think I disagree? (I do not.) ---------------------------------------- Dhamma and the current state of the evolving conceptual realm of neuroscience have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. As I've enthused at other times: Science schmience. --------------------------------------- Howard: Well said! ;-)) -------------------------------------- Brain is meat. Eclecticism is for musical tastes, not Dhamma. --------------------------------------- Howard: That's true. (I'm pescetarian, if that's a word, but I do hear that sauteed brain can be quite delicious, especially if prepared with peppers and onion!) -------------------------------------- H: "The Buddha certainly spoke of psychic phenomena including out-of-body experience, divine eye, hearing at great distances, levitation, etc. (With regard to the levitation the Buddha spoke of, BTW, it is a *body* that levitates, which means that the body 'exists'! The mode of its existence is another matter. It's empty nature; i.e., it's complete dependence on conditions and on component phenomena all of which are also empty of core and substance, is another story.)" Scott: The pursuit of these 'psychic phenomena' is unnecessary. -------------------------------------- Howard: I don't pursue them. Jhanas, OTOH, are part and parcel of the path. Whatever iddhis (is that the word?) develop concomitantly just do so, IMO. ------------------------------------ 'Bodies' do not 'exist.' The rest - about emptiness and that - is a common litany chanted by a few. ------------------------------------- Howard: ROFL! You speak of litanies? ;-) ------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ======================== With metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94199 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:16 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Ken and all, > "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Apologies for the delay and thanks for the quotes! > > ---------------------- > A: > And what "facts" do lead to awakening and are required? Sutta > quotes please. > > "If a monk understands the meaning and the text of Dhamma- even if >it > be but a stanza of four lines-and be set on living in accordance >with > the dhamma, he may be called "one widely learnt, who knows Dhamma by > heart.". > > AN Vol2 Book of 4s pg 185 Vi (186) Approach > ----------------------- > > Can you think of a conventional example when that sort of thing >might happen? In the suttas there are plenty. Ex: Bahiya instructions. The point I am making is: >I am thinking of a surgeon who has lost his memory of surgery > and just needs a vital snippet of information to bring it all back. Dhamma is NOT BRAIN SURGERY OR ASTROPHYSICS! "It is about letting go of ALL, ALL craving for everything". If the above line is fully realized, one is an Arhat. The realizing of it is tough and a different matter. > OK that's a lame example, but the point is that all the hard work >of > learning Dhamma and developing paramis is done over many, many > lifetimes. When, in the current lifetime, a few words of Dhamma > are heard, understanding can arise immediately. But that is only > provided that the hard work has been done. Can you provide sutta quotes? > ------------------------- > A: >" > Monks, in the moral and virtuous, right concentration perforce > thrives; when there is right concentration, true knowledge and > insight perforce thrive in one who has right concentration > AN Book 5th iii, 19 V, III, (24) > pg14 (EM hare) > ------------------------- > > Another good one thanks! But I fear you are thinking right > concentration arises before right understanding. As has been > explained to you many times at DSG *with sutta quotes* that is not > true. Right Concentration and Right Understanding - along with the > other Path factors - always arise together, and Right Understanding > is always their leader. > Dear Ken, I am a FIRM BELIEVER that right view comes FIRST, FIRST. With Right View, right concentration can arise. I will never dispute it. The only disputation is regarding the amount and type of right concentration needed for support, strength and increase of right view and RIGHT LIBERATION. With New Year Best Wishes! =========== * Howard's signature blocks: == A change in anything is a change in everything (Anonymous) == Entrances to holiness are everywhere. The possibility of ascent is all the time, even at unlikely times and through unlikely places. There is no place without the Presence (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) == He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none â€" such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. (From the Uraga Sutta) == Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains "going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it" and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible (From the Avarana Sutta) == Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream (From the Diamond Sutra) == When knowing what is to be known, he doesn't construe an [object as] known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-known. He doesn't construe a knower. (The Buddha, speaking of himself in the Kalakarama Sutta) == See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance. (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) == /Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities./ (From the Sacitta Sutta)