#94600 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 7:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/9 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "It's a leading question if you are implying that joy or pleasant > feeling is known independently of the context." > > Scott: While I'll agree that it's a good question, perhaps adequate, > I'd appreciate it if you'd stop heaping so much praise on such a > simple question. It's hardly a leading question. > > H: "What arises at any time is a synthetic whole, something like : > pleasant feeling while licking this ice cream. All of the > characteristics are known, at once." > > Scott: Herman, while 'pleasant feeling' is a reality with > characteristic, 'licking this ice cream cone' certainly is not. Sorry, but now there can be no doubt that this is a leading statement. That you unquestioningly adopt a particular theory of perception is your right. That, however, doesn't oblige me to express myself in the idiom in which your theory is cast, nor is it incumbent on me to accept its axioms. And I certainly don't read the dsg guidelines to warrant the labelling of any disagreement with certain views that are not uniformly represented in the canon as being "detracting". What I said was that "pleasant feeling while licking an ice cream" arises as a synthetic whole, and that all the characteristics of that whole are known at once. To analyse a synthetic whole into component parts is to destoy that synthetic whole, and replace it with a new synthetic whole, "thinking about pleasant feeling while licking an ice cream". Can I > ask you to specify the various realities Leading question - I do not subscribe to there being various realities as separate experiences and their characteristics to > which this conventional description refers? I differentiate between experience and the causes/conditions for experience. Experience is not experienced as individual separate characteristics, it is experienced as wholes. That's all there is to it. Unless you are going to to tell me that your experience is otherwise. As to how or why this occurs, thats a totally different ballgame. The how or why of experience is not the same as the experience. Do you agree with that? I am quite happy to give you my simplistic understanding of the complexities of how perception works. It will include the ayatanas, but RobM has asked me not to get ahead of myself. So I will wait a day or two more for him to introduce something in his thread about the ayatanas. Failing that, I will happily launch into a Buddhist-oriented discussion on "the mechanics" of perception. And then, I guess, you'll > need to account for the characteristic of the reality that knows, > while at it. Just so we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs, why don't you in the meantime account for your wholesale and uncritical acceptance of an untestable theory :-) Cheers Herman #94601 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 7:23 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Alan, > > > The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness > (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. .... S: Did anyone ask you to show us the sutta? If not, show us the sutta, please! Metta, Sarah ========== #94602 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 7:50 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi Herman, > What arises at any time is a synthetic whole, something like : pleasant feeling while licking this ice cream. All of the characteristics are known, at once. > > c: which, as Nina and Alberto were kind enough to remind me today, is the difference between satipatthana and 'me' knowing. H: I know that I risk being labelled a detractor, but I'm merely asking the obvious question, and do so in good faith. Were either Alberto or Nina kind enough to say how satipatthana is known? Also, you introduced 'me' into this, not me. :-) c: my writing 'me' was a reminder to myself that 'I' am not the knower in question. Sarah asked what to her must've been obvious questions, too, but they aren't the ones that occurred to me. I don't offhand remember exactly what our other two friends said, just what hit me, so to speak. You're not at risk, but confirmed, in my narrow outlook, by statements like: "The individual characteristic of an individual dhamma is pure, unadulterated, latter-day, insightless bunkum" as a 'detractor' - meaning that as far as i'm concerned, your interests in pursuing any of this are contrary to mine. I don't know that it matters. I guess we all have 'good faith' in our own thinking. Mine happens to include the belief that Buddha was the first Abhidhamma teacher, etc. etc. as I'm sure i've ranted on about before. g'night, connie #94603 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 8:10 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Sarah, >"sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > > > The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness > > (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. > .... > S: Did anyone ask you to show us the sutta? If not, show us the >sutta, please! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > "Our minds will remain unaffected, we shall utter no bad words, we shall abide friendly and compassionate, with thoughts of loving- kindness and no inner hate. We shall abide with loving-kindness ***in our hearts*** extending to that person!!!, and we shall dwell extending it to the entire world as our object, with ***our hearts*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving- kindness, without hostility or ill-will." That is how you should train yourselves. " MN21 =================== "Now a disciple who is ennobled (by reaching the Noble Path), who has rid himself in this way of covetousness and ill-will and is undeluded, abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his ***heart*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness without hostility or ill-will extending over the all-encompassing world. He abides with his heart http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html In any case, the loving feeling is felt in the heart (not the brain). That is what one focuses on and sends to all. Hey, one can't focus on non-existent and constant concepts (as you say, Sarah...) of 'people'... With metta, #94604 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 8:16 pm Subject: Re: metta meditation truth_aerator Hello Sarah and all, regarding different instructions: "The universalization of metta is effected in these three specific modes: l. generalized radiation (anodhiso-pharana), 2. specified radiation (odhiso-pharana), 3. directional radiation (disa-pharana). According to the Patisambhidamagga, the generalized radiation of metta is practiced in five ways, the specified radiation in seven ways, and the directional radiation in ten ways. These ten directional ways may be combined with the five categories of general radiation and with the seven categories of specified radiation, as we will show. In each of these modes of practice, any of the four phrases of the standard metta formula — "May they be free from hostility, free from affliction, free from distress; may they live happily" — may be used as the thought of radiation. Thus four types of thought applied to five, seven, and 120 objects of metta amount to 528 modes of radiation. Any of these can be used as a vehicle for attaining absorption (jhana) through the technique of metta-bhavana. (See Vism. IX, 58.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html# ch6 ================================== "And how does a bhikkhu abide with his heart imbued with loving- kindness extending over one direction? Just as he would feel friendliness on seeing a dearly beloved person, so he extends loving- kindness to all creatures." From the Abhidhamma Pitaka, Appamannavibhanga http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html With best wishes, Alex #94605 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mahabhuta upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/8/2009 8:19:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Nina, 2009/1/8 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Herman, > Op 8-jan-2009, om 2:46 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> Could I ask you to clarify what you mean by "one object"? Can that one >> object be complex ie have/be multiple, simultaneous characteristics? > -------- > N: No simultaneous charactreistics. Thanks for your comments. Leaving aside different sense doors for the moment, can multiple characteristics through one door be known at once? For example, can blue, yellow, red, green, purple be all seen at once? ------------------------------------------ Howard: According to Abhidhamma on this issue, as I understand it, and as I also believe, what is seen at any instant, a so-called visible object (or rupa), is generally a multicolored "palette" or mosaic seen in its entirety as a single object with all features included, and it takes further cognitive processing to mentally separate out the various colors. But what is separated out is not baseless - it is based on the character of the original sight. --------------------------------------- Kind Regards Herman ======================== With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94606 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Sarah) - In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:11:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: > > > > The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness > > (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. > .... > S: Did anyone ask you to show us the sutta? If not, show us the >sutta, please! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > "Our minds will remain unaffected, we shall utter no bad words, we shall abide friendly and compassionate, with thoughts of loving- kindness and no inner hate. We shall abide with loving-kindness ***in our hearts*** extending to that person!!!, and we shall dwell extending it to the entire world as our object, with ***our hearts*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving- kindness, without hostility or ill-will." That is how you should train yourselves. " MN21 =================== "Now a disciple who is ennobled (by reaching the Noble Path), who has rid himself in this way of covetousness and ill-will and is undeluded, abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his ***heart*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness without hostility or ill-will extending over the all-encompassing world. He abides with his heart http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html In any case, the loving feeling is felt in the heart (not the brain). That is what one focuses on and sends to all. Hey, one can't focus on non-existent and constant concepts (as you say, Sarah...) of 'people'... With metta, ============================== I don't know Pali, but a modern speaker of English would understand the reference to 'heart' as a metaphorical reference to emotion, and not as a reference to the blood-pumping organ. There is a strong two-way correlation between emotion and brain activity (or activation by brain stimulation), certainly, but I know of nothing that indicates that the heart organ is the seat of emotion. Of course, strong emotion causes the heart to beat quickly, and that is why people associate emotion with the heart, but it isn't the heart that causes emotion - the relationship is largely in the opposite direction. With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94607 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 9:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/9 connie : > Hi Herman, > You're not at risk, but confirmed, in my narrow outlook, by statements like: "The individual characteristic of an individual dhamma is pure, unadulterated, latter-day, insightless bunkum" If your interest was in being even handed you would have included the smiley that I deliberately placed at the when I wrote my bunkum turn-of-phrase. It was all part of what for me was a humorous exchange with Scott and his drowning sectarian turn of phrase. Never mind. Cheers Herman #94608 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Fri, 9/1/09, Alex wrote: > >A: The object of metta in meditation is the feeling of loving kindness > > (felt in the chest). Same for other Brahma viharas. ... A:"Our minds will remain unaffected, we shall utter no bad words, we shall abide friendly and compassionate, with thoughts of loving- kindness and no inner hate. We shall abide with loving-kindness ***in our hearts*** extending to that person!!!, .... S: So the object is 'that person' or other beings. I'm not sure that 'in our hearts' here is referring to anything being 'felt in the chest'. After all, what is experienced through the body-sense are various rupas, not metta. ... >and we shall dwell extending it to the entire world as our object, with ***our hearts*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving- kindness, without hostility or ill-will." That is how you should train yourselves. " MN21 ============ ======= >"Now a disciple who is ennobled (by reaching the Noble Path), who has rid himself in this way of covetousness and ill-will and is undeluded, abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his ***heart*** abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness without hostility or ill-will extending over the all-encompassing world. He abides with his heart http://www.accessto insight.org/ lib/authors/ nanamoli/ wheel007. html .... S: "'heart' abundant" refers to the extent of the metta, just as when we talk about 'heart-felt appreciation or kindness' in English. ... A: >In any case, the loving feeling is felt in the heart (not the brain). That is what one focuses on and sends to all. ... S: I think that when there is metta, there's no need to focus on the heart or anything else. One just is friendly and kind to those around, helping as one can, being considerate. Many, many opportunities all day.... Here, in Fiji I'm surrounded by strangers, but in so many ways one can be friendly or help others - offering a band-aid, a cup of tea, assisting staff in shops or restaurants and so on. Sometimes, just giving a smile... No need or time to think of the heart. ..... A:> Hey, one can't focus on non-existent and constant concepts (as you say, Sarah...) of 'people'... ... S: One can focus on anything, but what's the purpose? Trying to have metta by focussing is very different from just being kind towards others. It doesn't mean there need be any wrong idea or mis-understanding that what we call 'people' are anything other than namas and rupas. Just as the cittas we call 'we' would like to be happy and experience kindness, so would the others. With heart-felt Metta! Sarah p.s Apologies for very intermittent posting - not always easy here in Fiji. ======= #94609 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 10:14 pm Subject: Report from the RSPCS egberdina Hi all, Careful, there is some humour in what follows :-) A recent report issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Suttas has drawn attention to what could be the most serious case of abuse of a sutta by a commentator. The report alleges that DN 9 has been the subject of systematic and ongoing abuse ever since the Buddha become unavailable for comment. The sutta is an account of a meeting between Messrs Buddha, Potthapada and Citta. The subject of their conversation is the cessation of perception, and the various assumptions of a self in perception. Frequent reference is made to three such assumptions, a gross self, a mind-made and a formless self. The Buddha explains that he teaches the abandoning of all acquisitions of self. His closing remark is: "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." This last line, in which the Buddha refers to the commonly accepted three selves of the day which he dismisses, has been taken by commentators to be proof positive that everything the Buddha ever spoke was in da Vinci code. RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. Cheers Herman #94610 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Alex In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:50:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: So the object is 'that person' or other beings. I'm not sure that 'in our hearts' here is referring to anything being 'felt in the chest'. After all, what is experienced through the body-sense are various rupas, not metta. ... .......................................... TG: Tell it to Abhidhamma's "heart base." ;-) I couldn't resist. :-) Jabbing aside, Happy New Year Sarah and thank you for this forum. TG OUT #94611 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 10:19 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob Hi Herman! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Well, I hope that denying the relation that is the continuity between > your past and future makes you feel better :-) I'm not denying the link between my past and my future. I enjoy my memories, my past, my present, the whole mix of experience. And I certainly feel like I"m "me." I'm just saying that who we are is not fixed, and that we are not who we think we are. That is where we seem to disagree, as you seem to think that identity is not only real, but objective. I think it's an image that's been set up to give us a feeling of security, and that it can be inspected, seen for what it is, and loosened up. Best, Robert ========================================== #94612 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:14:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. Cheers Herman ............................................................. TG: That's what the "little blue kasina" is for. #94613 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 10:42 pm Subject: Re: Report from the RSPCS buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > This last line, in which the Buddha refers to the commonly accepted > three selves of the day which he dismisses, has been taken by > commentators to be proof positive that everything the Buddha ever > spoke was in da Vinci code. > > RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering > codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. LOL! Good one! I hate it when that phrase is used out of the context of that sutta! You say it makes out the Buddha to be speaking in Da Vinci code; but I think it is much worse. Doing that makes the Buddha into a liar! It would mean that everything he said in every sutta he didn't really mean and didn't really believe. In other words, he just walked around lying all the time! There is nothing "deep" about that idea- it is purely disgraceful. The Buddha gave a warning where a warning was appropriate. If the Buddha didn't give a warning, then no warning is warranted. Metta, James #94614 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:05 pm Subject: The Buddha on Hungry Ghosts! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Benefits of Giving and Dedication of the Merits: The Buddha once spoke on Ghosts, who walk through walls & who need our help: Outside the walls they stand and wait, And at the junctions and road-forks, Returning to their prior homes, urging! They wait beside the posts of gates. But when a rich feast is set out with food & drink of every kind, remember the fact that few humans do recall: These pellucid ghosts was created from their past own acts. So they who are compassionate, who have a heart to give to their relatives such drink and food as may be pure And good and fitting at these times: Then let this food be for the ghost relatives; May the ghost relatives have some happiness.! These ghosts of the departed of my family Foregathered and assembled there Will eagerly their blessing give For plentiful rich food and drink: So may our relatives live long, Owing to whom we have this gain, For honour to us has thus been done, No giver ever lacked the sweet fruit. In the dimension of these Ghosts, There is never any ploughing there, Nor any cattle-herding found, Nor merchandizing just the same, Nor bartering for coin of gold: The ghosts of the departed family, Live there on anything given only here; As water showered on the hill, Flows down to reach the hollow vale, So giving given here can serve The ghosts of your departed family. As river-beds, when full can bear The water down to fill the sea, So giving given here can serve the ghosts of the departed family there. He gave to me, he worked for me, He was my family, friend, & intimate! Give gifts, then, for departed ones, Recalling what they used to do. No weeping, nor yet sorrowing, Nor any kind of mourning, helps the Departed Ones, whose family remain Unhelpful to them acting thus silly. But when this offering is given and Well placed in the Sangha Community For them, then it can serve them long In future and at once as well. The True Dhamma for relatives has here been shown, And how high honour to departed ones is done, And how the Bhikkhus can be given strength as well, And how great merit can be stored away by you. Therefore: Dedicate the merit of any gift to your hungry Ghost Family! The suffer a lot, wailing in despair, but in vain, repenting their evil deeds. Source: Minor Readings and the Illustrator VII http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130231 More on Ghost being! From the Canonical Tipitaka: Minor Anthologies Vol 4, Vimanavatthu & Petavatthu http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130738 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Hungry_Ghost_Rebirth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/pu/peta_vatthu.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Buddha on Hungry Ghost being! #94615 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:33 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------ <. . .> RE: > > > Buddhism turns away from involvement with external objects > of desire and revulsion, and turns inward towards the nature of the > mind itself, until that mystery is resolved in nibbana. > > > KH: > > That sounds very wrong to me. Insight - and only insight - leads to > nibbana. And insight is 'right understanding of dhammas.' > > RE: > I would not say Ken, that Right Understanding does *not* include correct seeing of dhammas, ---------------- Good, but I am hoping you will forget everything you have learnt about the Dhamma, Robert, and start again. There are namas and there are rupas (paramattha dhammas). Namas are mental phenomena and they experience an object. Rupas are physical phenomena and they don't experience anything. When the conditioned nama known as panna (right understanding) experiences another conditioned nama or a rupa it sees that object as having inherent characteristics. They include the characteristics of fleetingness (anicca) unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and soullessness (anatta). Knowing all conditioned dhammas to possess those characteristics, panna develops dispassion and renunciation with regard to them. In this way, fully-developed panna turns away from conditioned dhammas, and experiences the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. ------------------------- RE: > but is it the dhammas that become enlightened, or the mind? ------------------------- There are only dhammas. There is nothing else. When we think of the conventionally known 'mind' for example, we have to remember there is actually (in ultimate reality) no mind - there are only namas (citta and cetasika). ------------------ RE: > I would say that dhammas are certainly what is perceived, ----------------- Dhammas are the only *realities* that are perceived (experienced). Concepts also can be experienced, but they are not real. They don't have inherent characteristics. --------------- RE: > but in nibbana, is any dhamma perceived? --------------- Nibbana is not a place that some one, or some thing, enters into. It is the unconditioned reality. It is the only nama that doesn't experience anything. But it can be experienced - by panna. --------------------------- RE: > I think the progress of insight is from what we think dhammas are, to what they actually are - which is most likely perceptual fabrications since we don't see through anything but our organs of sense and mind - and then finally away from all kandhas to the direct perception of nibbana itself. What the perception of nibbana consists of is another matter, to be sure. ---------------------------- As I said, I hope you will forget all the mythology you have learnt about the Dhamma and start again from the beginning. The beginner's right understanding of dhammas may be elementary but it is nonetheless right understanding. "Namas experience and object: rupas don't experience anything." That is right understanding, and it will remain right understanding even after nibbana has been experienced. Ken H #94616 From: "sprlrt" Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:53 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert, R: Please, Alberto, define for me what you mean by "real nature." It cannot be a mere abstraction but must refer to something specific. I understand the key word is "characteristic" but if there is a characteristic that is absolutely real and unchanging - at least for the moment - it would then be immune from the fate of all things within samsara. A: What about all the Buddhas prior to Gotama (Kassapa etc.), over an unconcievable number of aeons, they all uncover exactly the same dhammas, how can dhammas be relative? R: Does it not establish a kind of absolute transcendent nature for those exact things that are supposed to be subject to annica? Does it not provide for a satisfying security in the absolute reality of these things within the very realm that dukkha is supposed to arise? And is this not in contradiction to the Buddha's entire scheme, in which satisfaction leads to disidentifying the kandhas as self? A: The purpose of pariyatti is to condition the arise of sati, so that it can start to see for itself the actual dhammas on which samsara is based upon. You are saying that a self would cling less to dhammas knowing that they are not real. From the little I know about the self (my own), it has a great variety of trick up its sleeves in order to preserve itself and flourish, including, but not limited to :-), the relativity theory. Alberto #94617 From: "robmoult" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:26 am Subject: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 4 robmoult Hi All, From my paper: ===== Existence beyond the Gross Physical Body According to Buddhism, death is a "one way street" from this existence to the next. The people who report "near death experiences" have not died from a Buddhist perspective, in spite of the fact that they may have satisfied some arbitrary definition of death established by the medical community. Mainstream scientific thinking generally describes out-of-body experiences as a "false memory" dreamt up by the brain during resuscitation [see Note below]. The Suttas make it clear that these "false memories" can be convincingly real. The Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18), includes the following, "Dependent on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one labels in the mind. What one labels, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable through the eye." This passage starts with a mechanical process of seeing (eye, form, eye-consciousness and contact) and moves to a subjective experience (one feels, one labels, one thinks about). Finally, the mental proliferations created by the mind become a source for more mental proliferations and the process spins out of control, bringing one further and further away from the reality of the moment. Because of mental proliferations, almost all of what we think we see has been added on by the mind. The Mûlapariyâya Sutta (MN 1) contrasts the thinking process for "uninstructed worldlings" (that's us) with the thinking process for those who have experienced Nibbâna (saints and Buddhas). The Buddha delivered this Sutta to expose how ego-conception driven by craving, conceit and wrong views (taṇhâ, mâna and ditthi) distort how we think by twisting experience to match an egocentric view. Again, the inner workings of our own mind cause us to distort reality to suit ourselves. The commonality of the experiences described can be attributed to the common ego-conception driven by craving, conceit and wrong views. Of course, there may be a common trigger experienced by all of these people, but it is difficult to see clearly through the clouds of mental proliferation. Note: The issue of "false memory" is still an open question. In an effort to provide some conclusive evidence, in September 2008, the University of Southampton started a three year research experiment to examine 1,500 heart attack patients in 25 UK and US hospitals to see if they experienced out of body experiences while they had no heartbeat or brain activity. There will be pictures in the emergency room and in the operating theatre which would only be visible if one were floating near the ceiling. If the people who have out of body experiences can describe these pictures, then clearly, this is not a "false memory". ===== Comments and discussion are welcome! Metta, Rob M :-) #94618 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:47 am Subject: nama rupa in daily life szmicio Dear Dhamma friends I realised that I forgot about Dhamma. Can we talk more on satipatthana? Thinking is nama, it thinks most the time, and only pa~n~nja can know it. But what are the conditions for pa~n~na of satipatthana? Why pa~n~na arises so rare? Why dosa arises so often? I know it all at the level of intelectual understanding, but why the moments of satipatthana don't arise? I feel a lot of dosa and also mana. Best wishes Lukas #94619 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:57 am Subject: nama rupa in daily life, continuation szmicio Dear Dhamma friends, What is the characteristic of nama? What are the conditions to know nama as nama. What is the characteristic of rupa? What are the conditions to know rupa as rupa. Best wishes Lukas #94620 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:14 am Subject: Response to Scott's Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner szmicio Dear Dhamma friends I find Mettaabhaavanaakathaa from Vism. difficult to read because I feel a lot of dosa now. I realised it's very hard to appreciate this Metta reminder now. My metta experience is very diffrent from this which has being shown in Vism. Actually, in my life I had a lot of akusala. I've learned it for years, and when I see people which has a lot of anger, which steal or even kills I feel metta. very very natural, not induced by anyone. actually there is noappropriate behaviour. just conditioned dhammas, nothing more. Can you say something about it, because i have a lot of doubts. Best wishes Lukas #94621 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] nama rupa in daily life nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 9-jan-2009, om 9:47 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I realised that I forgot about Dhamma. ------- N: We all do, absorbed as we are in all the objects impinging on the senses. Thinking long stories about them. So, let us discuss Dhamma now. -------- > > L: Can we talk more on satipatthana? > Thinking is nama, it thinks most the time, and only pa~n~nja can know > it. But what are the conditions for pa~n~na of satipatthana? Why > pa~n~na arises so rare? Why dosa arises so often? -------- N: Accumulations. All kinds of defilements have been accumulated for many lives and that is why there are conditions for their arising at any time. Some people want to eradicate immediately lobha, dosa or mana. But the eradication takes places at different stages of enlightenment, and wrong view has to be eradicated first. This happens at the first stage of enlightenment. You have aversion about your lack of sati and this shows that there is clinging. First, all defilements have to be seen as conditioned dhammas. Conditioned, because they have been accumulated. Even if you see this intellectually, it is helpful. There are just dhammas and all of these should be seen as they really are. ---------- > > L: I know it all at the level of intelectual understanding, but why > the > moments of satipatthana don't arise? > I feel a lot of dosa and also mana. -------- N: We should also remember that it is not me who is negligent or who is aware of nama and rupa. Do not think that Dhamma is easy. I just heard this morning that somebody asked for an example of negligence. Answer: Thinking that the Dhamma is easy. Kh Sujin said: < We read that there is fire on our head and this seems easy to understand. One has to get water to extinguish the fire. But where does one get water from? The fire is ignorance, avijja, and wrong view. Pa~n~naa should be developed and pa~n~naa knows that it is not self who can eradicate defilements. The development of pa~n~naa does not mean that one should torture oneself not enjoying good food, nice views or sounds. One cannot force oneself not to have lobha. Defilements cannot be eradicated by an idea of self, only by right understanding.> This can be applied to all kinds of defilements that arise. Understanding of our defilements can condition more patience. Satipatthaana develops (it develops, not we develop it) little by little. Sometimes there can be awareness of hardness or sound, but we have to accept that there are many moments of unawareness, or just thinking of realities. But all such moments are real, whether we like them of dislike them. Nina. #94622 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] nama rupa in daily life, continuation nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 9-jan-2009, om 9:57 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > What is the characteristic of nama? What are the conditions to know > nama as nama. -------- N: Nama experiences an object, feels, remembers, is angry, etc. These are all different kinds of nama. Thery are citta and cetasikas. We take dosa or metta for self, we think that it is my dosa, my metta. But we can learn that there are conditions for their arising. But this has to sink in by often considering this. ------- > L: What is the characteristic of rupa? What are the conditions to know > rupa as rupa. ------- N: Rupa does not know anything. It is helpful to learn about different kinds of rupa. There are seven kinds that appear all the time: colour, sound, odour, flavour and three tangibles appearing through the bodysense: solidity, appearing as hardness of softness, heat, appearing as heat or cold, and motion, appearing as motion or pressure. They present themselves all the time and we can learn their characteristics. Seeing nama as nama and rupa as rupa, seeing them as mere dhammas, not self. Do not expect too much. This is the first stage of insight. Before that arises, there has to be awareness of them over and over again. But by conditions. Nobody can induce awareness. Nina. #94623 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Howard > There is no doubt that the Buddha distinguished concept from reality in > the suttas, but the issue at hand is far more specific than that. The issue > is that the elements of the five khandhas have been described in the suttas as > quite opposite from being "ultimate realities." What I have seen in the > suttas with regard to elements of the five khandhas is how they are anicca, > dukkha, and anatta, how they are conditioned, insubstantial, and, as in the Phena > Sutta, like a glob of foam, a bubble, a mirage, (hollow like) a banana tree, > and magic trick, and, as in the Uraga Sutta,, even unreal(!). > --------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this explanation of the issue as you see it. You see the commentarial expression "paramattha dhammas " as being incompatible with the descriptions in the suttas of dhammas as: - anicca, dukkha, and anatta, - conditioned, insubstantial, - like a glob of foam, a bubble, a mirage, (hollow like) a banana tree, and magic trick, as in the Phena Sutta - unreal, as in the Uraga Sutta I take it, then, that the issue is the use of the term "paramattha". To my understanding, the basis for dhammas being described and "paramattha" is that (a) each dhamma of its particular kind has a characteristic that is unique to that kind of dhamma, and (b) dhammas are not reducible any way. I do not see any incompatibility between this and the expressions anicca, dukkha, anatta or conditioned. Each dhamma of its type is distinct from dhammas of the other types, and each dhamma is also anicca, dukkha and anatta. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. As regards the term "insubstantial", I'd like to see the context in which dhammas are said to be "insubstantial". As regards the terms from the Phena Sutta, as Alberto has pointed out, these are metaphors and not to be taken literally. In addition, each term is applied to only 1 khandha and not the other 4, so they are being used in the sutta as terms of distinction rather than of commonality. Obviously, they are to be understood in a manner that does not conflict with dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. As regards the term "unreal" in the Uraga Sutta, as I don't know the Pali term I can't comment. Jon #94624 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:09 am Subject: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34. no 8. nilovg Dear friends, Awareness is different from thinking about nåma and rúpa, from theoretical understanding which stems from listening to the Dhamma. Awareness of realities is not developed if you, while seeing, think about it with agitation, worry and nervousness; if you think with agitation that what appears is rúpa and that seeing is nåma. At such a moment there is no investigation, no study of a characteristic of rúpa or a characteristic of nåma. It is necessary to have first correct understanding of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa so that satipatthåna can arise and be directly aware of them. You should understand that the nåma which sees is a reality which experiences something, that it has no shape or form and that it is non-self. It is not necessary to assume a particular posture in order to know realities. It is not necessary to stand first and then see, or to sit or lie down first and then see, so that you would know seeing as it is. Satipatthåna investigates precisely the characteristic of seeing as a type of reality which experiences something, not “I” or self, not a being or a person. When satipatthåna arises and it is aware of the characteristic of rúpa appearing through the eyes, that characteristic can be investigated, so that it is known as only a type of reality, not self, not a being or a person. Q. : The practice should be steadfast, not agitated, as you just said. Therefore, is it possible to use the method of satipatthåna of breathing (ånåpåna satipatthåna)? The subjects of satipatthåna are body, feeling, citta and dhamma, but we can combine these with ånåpåna sati, mindfulness of breathing. I myself have given the name of “ånåpåna satipatthåna” to this way of practice. S. : It is mostly the desire for result which causes a person to look for a combination of several methods. He may not know how to develop understanding and tries therefore to use one method in combination with another one so that understanding (sampajañña) would become more accomplished. He believes that there is in that way no forgetfulness and that he can for a long time focus on one object. However, is that not clinging? People may well wish to focus citta for a long time on a particular object, but they cannot be mindful in the right way, they cannot be mindful, for example, of what appears through the eyes or through the other doorways. When people try to make citta concentrate on one object they are actually combining several methods of development because of clinging to result. It is not the development of paññå. ------------------- Nina. #94625 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi TG > Any school of Buddhism, or any school of any religion for that matter, will > think their tenents are grounded...based on their views and interpretations > of such. Since there is a dispute as to whether the Buddha taught anything > such as "ultimate realities," we ask for Sutta sources and evidence. But there > seem to be no direct references by the Buddha to such a thing. So the mere > opinion based on problematic interpretations that the Buddha taught such, is > way to weak to be accepted without an extremely compelling Sutta case to back > it up. > > The case has not risen to that level. It is not suggested that the Buddha used the term "paramattha dhammaa". What is being suggested is that the "dhammaa" of which the Buddha spoke at length in the suttas exhibit an identifying characteristic capable of being the object of panna. I suggest our discussion here needs to be about *meaning* rather than *choice of terminology*. Jon #94626 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Rob > > But "collections of khandhas" is just another [more PC] term for > > beings ;-)) > > > > If the world is truly seen (i.e., with developed panna) in terms of > > collections of khandhas, that would be what I was referriug to in an > > earlier post as thinking in concepts but without wrong view. > > Would there be an even more advanced view in which the view of beings > as khandas would be transcended as well? And then what would be the > object of metta? The view arrived at by developed panna, about which we've been talking, is not a view *of beings* at all, even though that's how we may speak of it conventionally. It's actually a view of khandhas: khandhas as they really are. And there is no view of a more advanced kind than this. The view that you and I have of beings and a self is also a view of khandhas: a wrong view;-)). It arises from time to time. It is not the same as thinking in terms of people and things, which may or may not be accompanied by wrong view (and often is not). This view is gradually displaced as panna is developed. The view is displaced, but the thinking in terms of people and things goes on. As I understand it, anyway. Jon #94627 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, I went through the suttas about jhaana as mentioned by you. I cannot solve all difficult points, but I have some observations. Op 31-dec-2008, om 22:22 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > 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. -------- N: The expression entering and emerging in the texts may be difficult to understand. Alex said: jhana exists. But it is important to realize that these are jhaanacittas arising and falling away, and this may be for a long period. No jhaana-mind that lasts. The Buddha also reminded not to take jhaana for self. One has to understand that there are different mental moments of jhana, jhana-cittas, and all of them are of the same type. When one 'enters' the first jhana it means the jhaanacittas are accompanied by five jhaanafactors, vitakka and vicaara being present. The jhaanacitta of the second stage is a different type of citta. Here is a text I just copy from ATI, only I do not agree with physically sensitive of pleasure, since I disagree with the idea that the jhaanacitta experiences bodily impressions: <"And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, & fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, and of him the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration." — SN 45.8 > It is not said that he first emerges before entering the second stage of jhana, but this is understood. Why otherwise would it be said that he enters the second jhaana. In order to enter it, he must have emerged before. This person has to know his jhaanacittas in order to abandon the more coarse factors of vitakka and vicara. He knows these only when he has emerged first. Citta that arises never knows itself, it has to be another citta arising later on. I give a more simple example: citta with lobha arises, but it does not know itself, it only knows the object it clings to. Another citta arising in a process later on can notice or be aware of lobha. The same happens in the case of jhanacittas. When he develops insight, and sees the jhaanacittas as impermanent, non-self, the object of citta has changed, it is no longer the meditation subject that was the object of the jhaanacittas. When he experiences nibbaana, the citta is lokuttara citta, citta of another plane. This could not occur when in jhaana, he must have emerged. --------- > > Alex: 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! ---------- N: As I remarked before, this is the same as being aware of lobha as present object. Lobha has just fallen away but it is still reckoned as present object. As said above: lobha cannot know itself. Thus I find Ven. Pandita's idea of 'vipassana jhaana' untenable. Nina. > #94628 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:44 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Hi Herman, Op 30-dec-2008, om 23:41 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > You cannot equate the sanna of the Abhidhamma with the memory of > daily life. -------- N: When speaking about memory in daily life, we can remember that this can only occur because each citta is accompanied by sa~n~naa that marks and remembers the object experienced at that moment. Nina. #94629 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Jon and Howard, Op 9-jan-2009, om 11:08 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > As regards the term "unreal" in the Uraga Sutta, as I don't know the > Pali term I can't comment. -------- N, message 9807 from Howard, years ago: Hi, Sarah (and all) - Yes, I also own Ven. Saddhatissa's wonderful translation of the Sutta-Nipata, and he definitely uses 'insubstantial' instead of 'unreal'. I also don't have the Pali, but it seems to me that 'insubstantial' would be a "safer" word than 'unreal', because 'unreal' could be taken to mean "absolutely without existence", which leans towards the nihilistic pole, whereas 'insubstantial' tends more towards the middle-way (or emptiness) perspective of the Dhamma. One translation that uses 'unreal' is the translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to be found on Access to insight. -------- N: Norman uses unreal in vs. 9 etc. . But if we take it in the right way there is no problem. he translates. ------ Nina. #94630 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/9/2009 1:28:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Herman In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:14:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. Cheers Herman ............................................................. TG: That's what the "little blue kasina" is for. ================================= TG, how many "argh's" am I allowed in a week? ;-)) With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94631 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/9/2009 5:09:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > There is no doubt that the Buddha distinguished concept from reality in > the suttas, but the issue at hand is far more specific than that. The issue > is that the elements of the five khandhas have been described in the suttas as > quite opposite from being "ultimate realities." What I have seen in the > suttas with regard to elements of the five khandhas is how they are anicca, > dukkha, and anatta, how they are conditioned, insubstantial, and, as in the Phena > Sutta, like a glob of foam, a bubble, a mirage, (hollow like) a banana tree, > and magic trick, and, as in the Uraga Sutta,, even unreal(!). > --------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this explanation of the issue as you see it. You see the commentarial expression "paramattha dhammas " as being incompatible with the descriptions in the suttas of dhammas as: - anicca, dukkha, and anatta, - conditioned, insubstantial, - like a glob of foam, a bubble, a mirage, (hollow like) a banana tree, and magic trick, as in the Phena Sutta - unreal, as in the Uraga Sutta ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I do not. I see the English translation of it, 'ultimate realities', as incompatible with these. ---------------------------------------------------------- I take it, then, that the issue is the use of the term "paramattha". --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly wrong. ;-) I have no problem with 'paramattha' or in translating it as 'ultimate', and I certainly have no problem with the word 'dhamma'. My "problem" is with translating 'dhammas' as 'realities', and that is for the reason already given, namely that dhammas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta - conditioned, insubstantial, and, as in the Phena Sutta, like a glob of foam, a bubble, a mirage, (hollow like) a banana tree, and a magic trick, and, as in the Uraga Sutta, even unreal(!), similes for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness, respectively. As the Buddha says very clearly in the Phena Sutta: "... a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form (or feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form (or feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness)?" ----------------------------------------------------------- To my understanding, the basis for dhammas being described and "paramattha" is that (a) each dhamma of its particular kind has a characteristic that is unique to that kind of dhamma, and (b) dhammas are not reducible any way. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are called 'paramattha', to my understanding, because they are conventionally treated as single phenomena as opposed to collections of phenomena (despite the tripartite division of "them" into the stages of arising, changing while standing, and ceasing). ------------------------------------------------------------ I do not see any incompatibility between this and the expressions anicca, dukkha, anatta or conditioned. Each dhamma of its type is distinct from dhammas of the other types, and each dhamma is also anicca, dukkha and anatta. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. As regards the term "insubstantial", I'd like to see the context in which dhammas are said to be "insubstantial". ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I've given sutta examples. I suppose you will need to now consult folks who know Pali well. -------------------------------------------------------------- As regards the terms from the Phena Sutta, as Alberto has pointed out, these are metaphors and not to be taken literally. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are analogies. Just as these adjectives apply to various compound, conventional objects, they apply to form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and concsiousness. Of course the Buddha isn't saying that literally these ARE foam, bubbles, mirages, banana trees, and magic tricks! (Like, no kidding!) But they ARE like these in being, literally, "empty, void, and without substance" -------------------------------------------------------- In addition, each term is applied to only 1 khandha and not the other 4, so they are being used in the sutta as terms of distinction rather than of commonality. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I noticed before in your writing (to TG?) that this is a big deal for you. Okay, but it is not so to me. In that sutta, the Buddha says for EACH that it is without substance! ------------------------------------------------------ Obviously, they are to be understood in a manner that does not conflict with dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed! That is how they are, and to constantly call them "realities" sure goes in the other direction. --------------------------------------------------- As regards the term "unreal" in the Uraga Sutta, as I don't know the Pali term I can't comment. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, so don't. ;-) That is Nyanaponika's translation. Of course, he could be off. The translation is the same on the web site _http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/1\ -uraga-vagga-p.html_ (http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata /1-uraga-vagga-p.html) . There you will find, for example the following: 10. Yo nà ccasà rã na paccasà rã sabbaü vitathamidanti vãtalobho, So bhikkhu jahà ti orapà raü urago jiõõamiva tacaü purà õaü. 10. If someone goes beyond expectations and recollections and is not greedy knowing the world as unreal, He gives up this and the other world, like the snake that discards the decayed skin. -------------------------------------------------- Jon ================================ With metta, Howard P. S. Even if "unreal" were dropped from the conversation, as it has a nihilist sense in English, there is sufficient insubstantiality emphasis made by the Buddha to go against translating 'dhammas' as 'realities'. the habit of so translating is SO contrary to the thrust of the Dhamma! Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94632 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Alex) - In a message dated 1/9/2009 5:43:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, I went through the suttas about jhaana as mentioned by you. I cannot solve all difficult points, but I have some observations. ============================== I thank you for your reply, Nina, but you do not account for the clear change in terminology with regard to the 8th and 9th jhanas from the first 7. In fact, in the Anupada Sutta, in the first 7, there is said of the cetasikas in effect "these states were defined by him one by one AS THEY OCCURRED; known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared." Only once the sutta gets to the 8th jhana is it 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) #94633 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:10 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn re: cornerstone Good morning Herman > You're not at risk, but confirmed, in my narrow outlook, by statements like: "The individual characteristic of an individual dhamma is pure, unadulterated, latter-day, insightless bunkum" H: If your interest was in being even handed you would have included the smiley that I deliberately placed at the when I wrote my bunkum turn-of-phrase. It was all part of what for me was a humorous exchange with Scott and his drowning sectarian turn of phrase. c: All right, i'm off my holier-than-thou horse & happily tearing up your Outlaw poster... sorry your smile didn't cut it for me. say, how 'bout all those little pieces! connie #94634 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:10 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, continuing with Ch.V - The Problem of Time, part 3. The Concept of the Present in the Abhidhamma, we come to the section on , where Nyanponika writes: We now turn to the term , "arisen," for which a fourfold division is given: {72} {72} At Asl 66 and the parallel passage at Vism 687. 1. , that is, presently or actually arisen. Uppanna, being grammatically a past participle, can also be taken here in the meaning of a "present tense" for which vattamaana is the grammatical term. It is identical with the "momentary present" (kha.na-paccuppanna; see above). ...to be continued, connie #94635 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:12 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: The foregoing observations should show that the mental as well as the material dhammas are not actually separable one from another. In the case of the mental dhammas, the term used is satsattha (conjoined); in the case of the material dhammas, the term used is avinibbhoga (inseparable). This raises the question why the dhammas are presented as a plurality. The answer is that, although they are not actually separable, yet they are distinguishable (vibhagavanta) one from another.96 It is this distinguishability that serves as the foundation of the dhamma theory. Hence it is often mentioned in the Pali sub-commentaries that the real nature of the things that are distinguishable can be brought into focus only through analysis.97 This distinguishability is possible because although the dhammas are harmoniously blended (ekato bhavagata), they are cognized severally (gocarananattata)98 and are thus established as if they were separate entities. It is, however, maintained that material dhammas are much more easily distinguished than mental dhammas.99 Thus, for instance, the distinction between colour, odour, taste, tactation, etc., is easy even for an ordinary person to make, while to distinguish mental phenomena one from another is said to be the most difficult task of all. This situation is well illustrated in the following reply given by Nagasena Thera to King Milinda: "Suppose, O king, a man were to wade down into the sea, and taking some water in the palm of his hand, were to taste it with his tongue. Would he distinguish whether it were water from the Jumna, or from the Aciravati, or from the Mahi? More difficult than that, great king, is it to distinguish between the mental conditions which follow on the exercise of any one of the organs of sense, telling us that such is contact, and such sensation, and such idea, and such intention, and such thought." 100 notes: 96. See e.g. ADSVM 5; VsmM 21; Abhvk 22. 97. (Abhvk 22; VsmM 470). 98. Mil 58-59. 99. MA II 287. 100. Questions of King Milinda, p.142. ...to be continued, connie #94636 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 1/9/2009 8:12:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: The foregoing observations should show that the mental as well as the material dhammas are not actually separable one from another. In the case of the mental dhammas, the term used is satsattha (conjoined); in the case of the material dhammas, the term used is avinibbhoga (inseparable). This raises the question why the dhammas are presented as a plurality. The answer is that, although they are not actually separable, yet they are distinguishable (vibhagavanta) one from another. ================================= The foregoing distinction between "distinguishable" and "separable" is one that I consider important and that I frequently emphasize. With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94637 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:29 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "15....And this: 'Bhikkhus, there are seven things gratifying and helpful to an enemy that happen to one who is angry, whether woman or man. What seven? Here, bhikkhus, an enemy wishes thus for his enemy, 'Let him be ugly!' Why is that? An enemy does not delight in an enemy's beauty. Now this angry person is a prey to anger, ruled by anger; though well bathed, well annointed, with hair and beard trimmed and clothed in white, yet he is ugly, being a prey to anger. This is the first thing gratifying and helpful to an enemy that befalls one who is angry, whether woman or man. Furthermore, an enemy wishes thus for his enemy, 'Let him lie in pain!' ... Let him not be wealthy!' ... 'Let him not be famous' ... 'Let him have no friends' ... 'Let him not on the breakup of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destiny in the heavenly world!'. Why is that? An enemy does not delight in an enemy's going to a happy destiny. Now this angry person is a prey to anger, ruled by anger; he misconducts himself in body, speech, and mind. Misconducting himself in body, speech, and mind, on the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of loss, in an unhappy destiny, in perdition, in hell, being a prey to anger' (A.iv,94)? And this: 'As a log from a pyre, burnt at both ends and fouled in the middle, serves neither for timber in the village nor for timber in the forest, so is such a person I say' (A.ii,95, Iti. 90). If you are angry now, you will be one who does not carry out the Blessed One's teaching: by repaying an angry man in kind you will be worse than the angry man and not win the battle hard to win; you will yourself do to yourself the things that help your enemy; and you will be like a pyre log.'" The Path of Purity. "...Monks, these seven states, pleasing to the enemy, caused by the enemy, come to the angry man or woman. Which are the seven? "Monks, here an enemy wishes this of an enemy: 'Would that he were ugly!' What is the reason? An enemy, monks, takes no delight in the physical beauty of an enemy. Though a man who is angry, overcome by anger, a slave to anger, may have washed himself well, annointed himself well, dressed his hair and beard, put on white garments, yet he is ugly, being overcome by anger. This is the first state pleasing to the enemy, caused by the enemy, which comes to the angry man or woman. "And again, monks, an enemy wishes this of an enemy: 'Would that he were suffering pain! ... that he had not abundant wealth ... that he were not wealthy ... that on dissolution of the body after death he might not reach the happy bourne, the bright world!' What is the reason? An enemy, monks, takes no delight in the happy faring of an enemy. This man who is angry, overcome by anger, a slave to anger, misconducts himself in deed, misconducts himself in word, and thought. Having misconducted himself in deed, word, and thought, he, being overcome by anger, on the dissolution of the body after death comes to a state of woe, an evil destiny, a place of suffering, hell' (A"nguttara iv, 94-96). 'Just as a cremation-firebrand, monks, lit at both ends and smeared with dung in the middle does not serve the purpose of fire-wood in the village or in the forest ... so in the same way I declare this person to be' (Ibid. ii, 95). Thou, now, in thus getting angry wilt not be following the Blessed One's religion. In requiting anger thou art worse than the angry man and wilt not win the battle hard to win. Thou wilt only bring upon thyself those hostile states. And thou wilt be like the cremation fire-brand.'" 'Sattime, bhikkhave, dhammaa sapattakantaa sapattakara.naa kodhana.m aagacchanti itthi.m vaa purisa.m vaa. Katame satta? Idha, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa eva.m icchati aho vataaya.m dubba.n.no assaati. Ta.m kissahetu? Na, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa va.n.navataaya nandati. Kodhanaaya.m, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo kodhaabhibhuuto kodhapareto ki~ncaapi so hoti sunhaato suvilitto kappitakesamassu odaatavatthavasano, atha kho so dubba.n.nova hoti kodhaabhibhuuto. Aya.m, bhikkhave, pa.thamo dhammo sapattakanto sapattakara.no kodhana.m aagacchati itthi.m vaa purisa.m vaa. Puna capara.m, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa eva.m icchati ahovataaya.m dukkha.m sayeyyaati ... na pacurattho assaati ... na bhogavaa assaati ... na yasavaa assaati ... na mittavaa assaati ... na kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa sugati.m sagga.m loka.m upapajjeyyaati. Ta.m kissa hetu? Na, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa sugatigamanena nandati. Kodhanaaya.m, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo kodhaabhibhuuto kodhapareto kaayena duccarita.m carati, vaacaaya manasaa duccarita.m carati. So kaayena vaacaaya manasaa duccarita.m caritvaa kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa apaaya.m duggati.m vinipaata.m niraya.m upapajjati kodhaabhibhuuto' ti (a. ni. 7.64) ca, 'Seyyathaapi , bhikkhave, chavaalaata.m ubhatopaditta.m majjhe guuthagata.m neva gaame ka.t.thattha.m pharati, na ara~n~ne ka.t.thattha.m pharati. Tathuupamaaha.m, bhikkhave, ima.m puggala.m vadaamii' ti ca, 'So daani tva.m eva.m kujjhanto na ceva bhagavato saasanakaro bhavissasi, pa.tikujjhanto ca kuddhapurisatopi paapiyo hutvaa na dujjaya.m sa"ngaama.m jessasi, sapattakara.ne ca dhamme attaava attano karissasi, chavaalaatuupamo ca bhavissasii' 'ti. Sincerely, Scott. #94638 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:46 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. abhidhammika Dear Scott, Nina and all How are you? Scott asked: "In your opinion, does the Paa.li meaning of the words rittaka, tucchaka, asaaraka, suggest that these are synonyms of the word anatta?" Suan answered: I am afraid I have no opinion on this, but I will give you what the ancient commentators have to say. Here are the quotes. "Parato, rittato, tucchato, suññato, assaamikato, anissarato, avasavattitoti-aadiihi kaara.nehi anattato passati." Section 757, Visuddhimaggo Vol 2. "Sabbe dhammaa anattaati sabbepi catubhuumakaa dhammaa anattaa. Idha pana tebhuumakadhammaava gahetabbaa. Te hi asaarato, avasavattanato, suññato, attapa.tikkhepato ca anattaati vipassitabbaa. Section 678, Theragaathaa A.t.thakathaa. The above Pali passages clearly indicate that those words are not the synonyms of the word `anatta'. But, their meanings are conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa (anattaati vipassitabbaa). Best wishes Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhioogy.org #94639 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:10 am Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi Howard, I'm not altogether sure about the 'avinibbhoga / inseparable'. 'Space' is or acts as a separator between the kalapas... I think the example in Survey is that it allows us to do things like tear a piece of paper. I like 'distinguishable' & 'distinct' but then again, 'separate' doesn't bother me, either. Then again, 'realities' for dhammas makes sense to me, too. Well, I sure don't have any answers. peace, connie #94640 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Suan, Scott, All In a message dated 1/9/2009 7:47:20 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: "Parato, rittato, tucchato, suññato, assaamikato, anissarato, avasavattitoti-avasavattitoti-aadiihi kaara.neh Section 757, Visuddhimaggo Vol 2. "Sabbe dhammaa anattaati sabbepi catubhuumakaa dhammaa anattaa. Idha pana tebhuumakadhammaava gahetabbaa. Te hi asaarato, avasavattanato, suññato, attapa.tikkhepato ca anattaati vipassitabbaa. Section 678, Theragaathaa A.t.thakathaa. The above Pali passages clearly indicate that those words are not the synonyms of the word `anatta'. But, their meanings are conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa (anattaati vipassitabbaa)v Best wishes Suan Lu Zaw .............................................................. TG: This is excellent to hear Suan. Thanks for the information. This is exactly as I had thought. In a sense, these words present the "ontology" of anatta, i.e., all things. As I see it, this continues to support my misgivings of considering any conditioned phenomena to be "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." The Buddha's descriptions for "insight into nature" are about as antithetical to that viewpoint as it gets. TG OUT #94641 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 4:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS TGrand458@... Howard Howard Howard In a message dated 1/9/2009 4:48:04 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: TG: That's what the "little blue kasina" is for. ================================= TG, how many "argh's" am I allowed in a week? ;-)) With metta, Howard ............................................. TG: I was almost preemptively going to write that you were not allowed to argh this one dammit. LOL I figured Herman was providing me cover and it could all be blamed on him. Don't you feel any compassion for me with all I've gone through with Scott? Talk about Suffering! LOL Isn't it amazing I can even type at all? And you want good jokes too??? ;-) TG #94642 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 5:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 1/9/2009 3:17:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: What is being suggested is that the "dhammaa" of which the Buddha spoke at length in the suttas exhibit an identifying characteristic capable of being the object of panna. ............................................. TG: I'll agree with this as far as it goes...and it goes far enough. ;-) TG #94643 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/9/2009 12:56:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: I was almost preemptively going to write that you were not allowed to argh this one dammit. LOL I figured Herman was providing me cover and it could all be blamed on him. Don't you feel any compassion for me with all I've gone through with Scott? Talk about Suffering! LOL Isn't it amazing I can even type at all? And you want good jokes too??? ;-) ============================= Don't you know that folk's only groan and puns etc that they like?? :-) With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94644 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie (and Howard), Op 9-jan-2009, om 18:10 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > I'm not altogether sure about the 'avinibbhoga / inseparable'. ------- N: Th eeight inseparable rupas (the four great elements and in addiiton colour, odour, flavour and nutrition) are called in Pali avinibbhoga rupas. As you know in each group there have to be at least these eight. ------ Nina. #94645 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: >N: The expression entering and emerging in the texts may be >difficult to understand. For those who believe things which are not supported by the suttas. >Alex said: jhana exists. Buddha has said that. I am just retelling what he has said in the suttas. > But it is important to > realize that these are jhaanacittas arising and falling away, and > this may be for a long period. No jhaana-mind that lasts. The >Buddha Yes. > also reminded not to take jhaana for self. I don't consider Jhana as self or mine. So? > the jhaanacitta experiences bodily impressions: They do. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact. Oh... and what are jhanacittas? :) I don't feel like continuing with the rest of the post. With metta, Alex #94646 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator Hi Sarah, Howard and all interested, The loving kindness feeling is felt better in, or near, what we call physical heart. But in any case one shouldn't focus too much on the precise location and 'shape' of the feeling. Just the feeling, and absorb into it. With metta, Alex > In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:50:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > S: So the object is 'that person' or other beings. > I'm not sure that 'in our hearts' here is referring to anything being 'felt > in the chest'. After all, what is experienced through the body- sense are > various rupas, not metta. > ... #94647 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:24 pm Subject: Re: Report from the RSPCS truth_aerator Hi Herman, > "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > > His closing remark is: "Citta, these are the world's designations, the > world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's > descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without > grasping to them." > > This last line, in which the Buddha refers to the commonly accepted > three selves of the day which he dismisses, has been taken by > commentators to be proof positive that everything the Buddha ever > spoke was in da Vinci code. Good observation Herman! With metta, Alex #94648 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 12:55 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Nina, Howard, > I'm not altogether sure about the 'avinibbhoga / inseparable'. ------- N: Th eeight inseparable rupas (the four great elements and in addiiton colour, odour, flavour and nutrition) are called in Pali avinibbhoga rupas. As you know in each group there have to be at least these eight. ------ Yes, at least. I was really objecting to taking Karunadasa's saying "the mental as well as the material dhammas are not actually separable one from another" too far. Just that words can be useful tools or become so important in their own right that they become meaningless or just senseless weapons. Sometimes I think this corner was a stupid idea, just apologize and drop it, but I keep going anyway. I thought at first we all might come to some agreement on terms but it doesn't seem like we ever really will and that will just have to be ok. It isn't the words that matter, anyway and agreement simply for the sake of agreement wouldn't have any meaning, either. Guess I just have to tell myself the bickering and debating is actually a good sign. But blah, blah... where's that ninth moment now? peace, connie #94649 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation egberdina Hi Jon, 2009/1/8 jonoabb : > Hi Herman > >> Do you believe that it is possible to have wise attention when >> listening to statements that are false? > > I understand "wise attention" to be the translation used for the Pali > term "yoniso manasikara" (the mental factor of manasikara when it > accompanies a wholesome mental state). > > The arising of a wholesome mental state while listening to statements > that are false cannot be precluded (such as, for example, there being > metta for the speaker). > > Of course, false statements about the way things are could be a > condition for wrong view, either at the time or at some later stage. > > What kind of scenario did you have in mind? > As we know from the suttas, it is entirely possible for wrong view to arise whilst within earshot of the Buddha. And that would be down to unwise attention. That is why I said that the critical factor is the attention, not the voice. I hope you get some time to enjoy Fiji (perhaps you could hide a clause somewhere in that legislation you're drafting that military coups will henceforth be illegal :-)) Cheers Herman #94650 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/8 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > H: "...I accept that training happens subject to conditions, some > known, some unknown. The person is simply the continuity between the > former and later conditioned states. What word do you use to refer to > that continuity, that nexus between the former and the later, in terms > of paramattha sacca?" > > Scott: No word. I don't accept that the person 'is simply the > continuity between the former and later conditioned states' if by that > is meant that the 'person,' therefore, has to be granted some sort of > reality status. > > The 'person' is a concept - a superfluous product of thought and a > designation which facilitates communication about realities. When > there is talk of a person (sammutti sacca) I accept that this mode of > expression refers to ultimate realities (paramattha sacca). In this > sense there is no contradiction; but this in no way leads to the > conclusion that 'the person' is therefore 'real.' > > Being a concept, and not a reality, a 'person' is not a 'nexus' > between anything that has ultimate reality. A 'person' is a product > of thought - pa~n~natti. One thinks of 'a person' because one tends > to think in terms of wholes conditioned by ignorance of the object of > perception. This is the mere synthetic process of thinking. > I am a little bit lost. You do acknowledge training as the "unfolding and development of dhammas arising and falling away." But you won't let me refer to that, without telling me that whatever word I use is concept, not real. Do you think that conditionality is not real, that it is only thinking? Cheers Herman #94651 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc egberdina Hi Scott, > > Scott: Now, how do you define anicca? > Impermanence is as good a word as others like it. Whatever word is used, it is crucial in understanding the meaning of anicca that it can never apply to a single thing. Because a thing cannot be what it is, yet be impermanent. That would be like saying that while being what it is, a thing is not what it is. Anicca puts the sword to sabhava. Cheers Herman #94652 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mahabhuta egberdina Hi Howard, 2009/1/9 : > Hi, Herman (and Nina) - > > > Leaving aside different sense doors for the moment, can multiple > characteristics through one door be known at once? > > For example, can blue, yellow, red, green, purple be all seen at once? > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > According to Abhidhamma on this issue, as I understand it, and as I also > believe, what is seen at any instant, a so-called visible object (or rupa), > is generally a multicolored "palette" or mosaic seen in its entirety as a > single object with all features included, and it takes further cognitive > processing to mentally separate out the various colors. But what is separated out is > not baseless - it is based on the character of the original sight. > --------------------------------------- Thanks, Howard. I agree that visible objects are not homogeneous, there are discernible differences. Cheers Herman #94653 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:01 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/9 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 30-dec-2008, om 23:41 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> You cannot equate the sanna of the Abhidhamma with the memory of >> daily life. > -------- > N: When speaking about memory in daily life, we can remember that > this can only occur because each citta is accompanied by sa~n~naa > that marks and remembers the object experienced at that moment. Thank you. If sanna can only mark whatever object arises at any moment, we still have no way of associating one object with another object. We still do not have the memory of daily life. Is there more to sanna? Cheers Herman #94654 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/10 connie : > re: cornerstone > Good morning Herman > >> You're not at risk, but confirmed, in my narrow outlook, by statements like: "The individual characteristic of an individual dhamma is pure, unadulterated, latter-day, insightless bunkum" > > H: If your interest was in being even handed you would have included the smiley that I deliberately placed at the when I wrote my bunkum turn-of-phrase. It was all part of what for me was a humorous exchange with Scott and his drowning sectarian turn of phrase. > > c: All right, i'm off my holier-than-thou horse & happily tearing up your Outlaw poster... sorry your smile didn't cut it for me. > Thank you, connie, I feel much better not being a marked man :-). While I am it, I very much appreciate these Abhidhamma threads. I think they are very worthwhile, and I want to thank you for all the effort you put into continuing them. As to unifying the sangha, now, there's a dream :-) Cheers Herman #94655 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS egberdina Hi TG, 2009/1/9 : > RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering > codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. > .. > > > TG: That's what the "little blue kasina" is for. > Razor sharp. Brilliant :-) Cheers Herman #94656 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Impermanence is as good a word as others like it. Whatever word is used, it is crucial in understanding the meaning of anicca that it can never apply to a single thing. Because a thing cannot be what it is, yet be impermanent. That would be like saying that while being what it is, a thing is not what it is. Anicca puts the sword to sabhava." Scott: All conditioned realities have the characteristic of impermanence. What you say above contradicts this. To what do you apply impermanence, having done away with 'single things?' In other words, what is it that has the characteristic of impermanence? (If you feel that this is another 'leading question' then no need to reply, since we diverge too much on this to find common ground.) I accept that impermanence of a thing is due to the rise and fall of that (or any conditioned) thing. I don't agree with what you assert in the foregoing. And the statement certainly doesn't warrant the conclusion regarding sabhava. This notion that impermanence precludes characteristic is not tenable - one is left with a characteristic (lakkha.na) but with nothing to which the characteristic applies. Anicca itself is not a thing, and therefore cannot be observed in the absence of things (since we are using the term 'thing'). It is always 'something' in relation to which the characteristic of impermanence is made manifest. Sincerely, Scott. #94657 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I am a little bit lost. You do acknowledge training as the 'unfolding and development of dhammas arising and falling away.' But you won't let me refer to that, without telling me that whatever word I use is concept, not real. Do you think that conditionality is not real, that it is only thinking?" Scott: If you are clear that the designation 'person' is a convential way of referring to momentary aggregates of dhammas with distinct and 'interacting' characteristics arising and falling away, and that 'training' is the conventional designation for the impersonal development of these dhammas (always arising and falling away in aggregate), then the term 'person' has a use. However, I've read you long enough to know that you do not consider person (or computer, or Hammond clone and a Leslie) to be concepts but to have some sort of 'reality.' You don't accept the distinction between sammutti sacca and paramattha sacca. 'Conditionality' is no more a reality, in the sense of paramattha, than the characterstic of anicca, as I noted to you in a recent post. 'Conditionality' is not a thing. Nor is it just a function of thinking. 'Conditionality' refers to the way in which dhammas with distinct characteristics are cause and effect for each other. Sincerely, Scott. #94658 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/10 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > > Regarding: > > H: "Impermanence is as good a word as others like it. Whatever word > is used, it is crucial in understanding the meaning of anicca that > it > can never apply to a single thing. Because a thing cannot be what it > is, yet be impermanent. That would be like saying that while being > what it is, a thing is not what it is. Anicca puts the sword to > sabhava." > > Scott: All conditioned realities have the characteristic of > impermanence. What you say above contradicts this. Realities, schmealities. > > To what do you apply impermanence, having done away with 'single > things?' In other words, what is it that has the characteristic of > impermanence? (If you feel that this is another 'leading question' > then no need to reply, since we diverge too much on this to find > common ground.) > How about consciousness, or mind, or any variant of it. > I accept that impermanence of a thing is due to the rise and fall of > that (or any conditioned) thing. I don't agree with what you assert > in the foregoing. And the statement certainly doesn't warrant the > conclusion regarding sabhava. > > This notion that impermanence precludes characteristic is not > tenable - one is left with a characteristic (lakkha.na) but with > nothing to which the characteristic applies. Your own views are tying you up in knots. How do you propose to turn what is the process of consciousness being produced as the product of form, sense base and contact, into a thing with its own characteristic? Anicca itself is not a > thing, and therefore cannot be observed in the absence of things > (since we are using the term 'thing'). Yes, anicca is not a thing. And the observation of things is ignorant grasping, the non-realisation of anicca. > > It is always 'something' in relation to which the characteristic of > impermanence is made manifest. Impermanence is a characteristic of process. There are no things. Cheers Herman #94659 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report from the RSPCS buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi TG, > > 2009/1/9 : > > Hi Herman > > > > > > In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:14:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > > RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering > > codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. > > > > Cheers > > > > Herman > > > > ............................................................. > > > > > > TG: That's what the "little blue kasina" is for. > > > > Razor sharp. Brilliant :-) > Haha...now I get it! impotence....little blue kasina....viagra. LOL! At first I didn't have a clue. Gosh, that's pretty naughty. TG, are you sure you were once a monk? ;-)) Metta, James #94660 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, I liked the way you expressed the following and, as always, the courtesy in your writing: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" >....Still I > appreciate the fine precision with which many in this group attempt to > discern the nature of reality. It is a worthwhile occupation in order > to clarify the nature of what we are dealing with on the path, even if > it does not take the place of sati itself and the refinement of direct > knowledge. ... S: This is just how I see it. It is worthwile to attempt to clarify and clarify again as this is what helps us to consider, reflect and develop an understanding of the Teachings. Such reflection, when wise, and further understanding of 'the nature of reality' is 'meditation' (or 'bhavana'), as I understand the term. Metta, Sarah ========= #94661 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Realities, schmealities." Scott: Hey, copy cat. H: "How about consciousness, or mind, or any variant of it." Scott: I don't forget, Herman, that you consider consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of matter. Nor do I forget that you think that the brain is the matter of consequence. What do you mean by offering consciousness as an example given your avowed materialist/epiphenomenalist stance? What, in your view, is 'consciousness' or 'mind' given this stance? Abhidhamma analysis refers to citta - a conditioned reality with characteristic. Consider Atthasaalinii (pp. 148-149): "[Mind or] consciousness is that which thinks of its object. A definition of the word has been given. As to its characteristics, etc., cognizing object is its characteristic, forerunning is its function, connecting is its manifestation, a mental and material organization is its proximate cause. There is no such thing as consciousness in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of cognizing. All consciousness has it." 'Aaramma.na.m cintetii'ti cittanti nayena cittassa vacanattho vutto eva. Lakkha.naadito pana vijaananalakkha.na.m citta.m, pubba"ngamarasa.m, sandahanapaccupa.t.thaana.m, naamaruupapada.t.thaana.m. Catubhuumakacitta~nhi novijaananalakkha.na.m naama natthi. Sabba.m vijaananalakkha.nameva. Scott: How do you respond to this Commentarial position? What is your alternative explanation? H: "Yes, anicca is not a thing. And the observation of things is ignorant grasping, the non-realisation of anicca." Scott: Account, then, if you would, for all the times you assert that computers and persons are real. If you'll say that these are taken for real due to ignorance (the mental factor, mind you) and grasped (a function of another mental factor) then this might make sense to me. Otherwise, you seem to say whatever suits your argument at the moment, while seeming to contradict your overall/over-time thesis. H: "Impermanence is a characteristic of process. There are no things." Scott: What is meant when it is said, for example, 'form is impermanent?' What is 'form' in this case? Sincerely, Scott. #94662 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > TG: Conditions will do whatever they do in accordance with conditional > interactions. (I know, what is a condition.) ;-) ... S: A condition now like visible object or seeing or thinking about what is seen? .... >> "A Theravada Buddhist discussion forum for anyone interested in > understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets > of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the > Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient > commentaries of that tradition." > > ............................................. > > > TG: Well, with what I have said above, and being a former Theravadin monk, > and 28 years of pursuing the Buddha's teaching, I will pretentiously assume > that I am qualified to discuss the above criteria even if poorly. I note that > the above does not require unanimous agreement as to the meaning within such > texts. .... S: :-) Can you tell us where and when you were a monk. Interested to hear more, TG. .... >....So the > disagreement is profound because it rests on the most important of matters. The "heart" of the practice. ... S: Yes, I agree with this too and I know that this is why we all feel strongly at times and why people start shouting at times (yes, by conditions!), even though there's no need as Nina has pointed out. Do you agree that the "heart" of the practice is always *now*? ... >>Scott: Now, that the Dhamma is the teacher, and that dhammas are the teachers, I have no doubt. That a dhamma has a characteristic and that these differ the one from the other is obvious to anyone whose ever experienced even the tenderest arising of sati in relation to any aspect of experience. ... S: I thought that Scott expressed this well, but you replied: ... > TG: Any child can distinguish different experiences. ... S: Yes, but a child takes all these experiences for 'self'. .... >Easy to claim -- that > experience is "its own" thing. .... S: I don't see any reference to "its own". Just dhammas which are different from other dhammas. The characteristic of seeing is different from hearing. In other words, seeing is not hearing and neither are 'atta'. ... >You've just thrown "dhammas" into the mix > and have deferred and directed the self-view outlook to a particle type theory. ... S: Dhammas - whether classified as khandhas, dhatus or ayatanas are what the Buddha taught as being the 'All'. It is only by understanding dhammas, that 'self-view' can be eradicated. As Scott and Phil C would say, last word to you, TG, (aka 'until I next reply')! Metta, Sarah ========= #94663 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Your own views are tying you up in knots. How do you propose to turn what is the process of consciousness being produced as the product of form, sense base and contact, into a thing with its own characteristic?" Scott: What is 'form?' What is 'sense base?' What is 'contact?' Why do you refer to these designations of realities when you neither believe in realities nor their characteristics? You can't eat your cake and have it too. Sincerely, Scott. #94664 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:03 pm Subject: Re: Vipassana in Jhana nichiconn Dear Nina, Howard, Alex, N: On Rob K' s forum I see that Ven. Pandita uses the expression vipassanaa ~naa.na. I have not found this expression before in the texts. c: I don't know whether this 'characteristic-examining jhaana' might be what he has in mind, but it would still not be "insight during jhaana", nor indeed, what is normally meant by 'jhaana': Asl 167: Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object and that which examines closely the characteristic marks. Of these two, 'object-scrutinizing' jhaana examines closely those devices [for self-hypnotism] as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called 'characteristic-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is so called from its examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is accomplished through the Path, the Path is also so called. And because Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the characteristic of truth, it also is called 'characteristic-examining jhaana.' Of these two kinds of jhaana, the 'object-examining' mode is here intended. Hence, from its examining the object and extinguishing the opposing Hindrances, jhaana is to be understood. "Here" being in the discussion of the fourfold jhaana system in the Discourse on Moral Consciousness in the Realm of Attenuated Matter. peace, connie #94665 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation sarahprocter... Hi Jon & Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > My understanding of the sutta passage is that "voice of another" > refers to what is being spoken by the other. ... S: Just to repeat from what I quoted before in case it's of any assistance to your good discussion: >From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of MN43: "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso manasikara)."* [* "MA: 'The voice of another' (parato ghosa) is the teaching of beneficial Dhamma. These two conditions are necessary for disciples to arrive at the right view of insight and the right view of the supramundane path. But paccekabuddhas arrive at their enlightenment and fully enlightened Buddhas at omniscience soley in dependence on wise attention without "the voice of another."]< .... Metta, Sarah ===== #94666 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: cornerstone scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...Just so we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs, why don't you in the meantime account for your wholesale and uncritical acceptance of an untestable theory :-)" Scott: I've puzzled over this for awhile, Herman. Here again, and I left in the smiley face (unlike the bad connie) I can't help but detect some sort of envy-based disparagement in the above expression. How can I get across to you the reasons for my 'wholesale and uncritical acceptance' of the way I see things - the Abhidhamma, the Commentarial exegesis? I have many. This acceptance is non-transferrable. I can't give you what you want. I accept it because I find no doubt arising. That's it. I can't help it and I'm not going to manufacture doubt. You seem to think that the Dhamma is to be approached as if there is such thing as objectivity. The scientific method (testing theories) is the pursuit of eternalists. There is no such thing as objectivity. Sincerely, Scott. #94667 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:22 pm Subject: Re: When and how did the view of Anatta translate, to self , in english ? sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charles.dacosta@..." wrote: > I think of that peek and that nice Hotel restaurant often. ... S: We can see the role of sanna (perception/memory)that accompanies the thinking now - recalling a beautiful sunny day, a walk up the Peak, breakfast in the garden as we chatted about the Dhamma, Kung Fu and Hong Kong.... All in a dream as we think and recall now. No Self or Selves involved. ... > > One point I forgot to add to this mess of ideas: Even in the West, > the soul is considered the essence of a being; but only in the West, > I think, the self is only a differentiator (from one thing/being to > another). .... S: I think the idea of 'atta' is universal, no matter where we live or what terms we use. There is an idea of 'being', 'soul', 'thing' for all unless an understanding of namas and rupas has developed. ... > > Now, I believe that, in early India soul and self may been mixed. But > nnot in the West. ... S: Again, I think the idea of 'atta' was and is there, regardless of how the view manifests. For example, in the Brahmajala, all the wrong views ehumerated come down to wrong views of atta in one guise or other. ... > PS: I need to go back to getting the emails, I had a hard time > finding this thread. ... S: I know the computer experts like yourself have the most difficulty, lol:-)). You can always key in, say, 'sarah charles' in the good search function on the homepage and I think you'll find the thread easily. Metta, Sarah p.s Btw, if anyone has any technical problems, you could always try asking James or Connie who both have expertise in this area. ======= #94668 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:34 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, (Herman, Nina & all) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > The big question that needs to be asked and answered is, "Why is it > so important that dhammas are - or are not - absolutely real?" Why > are people so adamant about it one way or the other? Why were people > prepared to split the sangha into two camps (Mahayana and Theravada) > over it? > > I don't know the publicly acknowledged answer to this big question. > It seems to me, however, that the no-paramattha-dhammas option leaves > the gate open for eternity belief. .... S: Interesting..... .... > > You see, the teaching of conditioned dhammas (citta, cetasika and > rupa) shows how there can be a world (a reality) without sentient > beings. There are actions and there are results of actions, but the > only actors and experiencers-of-results are these fleeting, > conditioned dhammas. End of story! End of belief in us sentient > beings! > > As I see it, Nagarjuna and his followers found a way around this > teaching. They proclaimed that conditioned dhammas were no more real > than sentient beings. And so the explanation of how there could be > kamma and vipaka without sentient beings fell flat. Back to square > one! > > Are you with me so far? :-) .... S: I think so.... Conditioned dhammas were no more real, so no kamma and vipaka.....so....eternity belief? I'll look forward to any further elaborations.... [Meanwhile, in a cyclone (a typhoon back home or a hurricane in the States) here..... torrential flooding and almost everything cancelled including all our weekend plans, so still stuck in Suva after setting out first thing for some whitewater rafting.....We may soon be rafting around the hotel garden at this rate. Most the roads are flooded, ships, buses, flights cancelled....just like Hong Kong in the summer (and Nina, just like a small Indian town here apart from the floods). Anyway, you're probably getting the same....how's the surf?] Jon, the sole Fijian Warrior in the Government office.....probably adding all those clauses Herman suggests:-).] Metta, Sarah ======== #94669 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Sarah > > p.s James....such agreement between us these days must be a record! > > ======== > > > > Well, I hate to rain on your enthusiasm, but I don't agree with you > in this regard. Changing "should" to "may" in the Vism. doesn't > change the fact that they are still instructions. They have to been > seen as a whole, not just the use of one word. It is obvious, when > viewed as a whole, that they are instructions. I just don't happen > to agree with the instructions as they are confusing to follow and > don't correspond with what the Buddha taught. ... S: Rain as much as you like.....It couldn't be more than the rain outside as I write*:-). I agree, that it's not the particular words that matter and that the texts *should be* read as *a whole*. Connie recently gave a good quote about how it's no use reading one or two suttas in isolation - the teachings all *conform* to the Dhamma-Vinaya. So this was my point too, the Buddha encouraged us to have metta anytime to anyone so that it can develop and become a brahma vihara. It develops through an understanding of its quality and value. Never is there a 'self' that follows instructions or does anything about it whilst sitting or standing or at any other time. Let's pursue this (at a very slow pace this end) until the rain ceases:-). Metta, Sarah * (as quoted by Han recently): Sn 1.2 Dhaniya Sutta, Dhaniya the cattleman: "The rice is cooked, my milking done. I live with my people along the banks of the Mahi; my hut is roofed, my fire lit: so if you want, rain-god, go ahead & rain." The Buddha: "Free from anger, my stubbornness gone, I live for one night along the banks of the Mahi; my hut's roof is open, my fire out: so if you want, rain-god, go ahead & rain." ================== #94670 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Scott & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >Scott: I'd like to study the section on lovingkindness over the next few > > months. > ------- > N: A good idea. > I would like to add a quote from Kh Sujin's Perfections: > < We may be forgetful of assisting others with loving-kindness, of > developing mettå in this way, time and again. We should support > others with mettå, > also when they are strangers, people we do not know. .... S: I'd taken some print-outs from the list to the nearest seaside resort and was sitting in a little open 'bure' or palm shelter by the sea, reading some of the longer messages. Earlier I'd met an American lady and she joined me in my bure. She'd experienced many losses in the last year and as we chatted she noticed my papers which I passed to her. She kept seeing the word 'metta' and asked a little about it. Yes, we can assist 'strangers' anytime. When there's metta, we're never lonely, there's no thought of 'me' at all. Actually, metta's so easy in that we don't need money or offerings - it can be anytime, any place, just being friendly and helpful. ... >...We should instead give assistance to someone without paying > attention to what he thinks about us, no matter whether he rejoices > in our deed or whether he blames us, because in reality he cannot > harm us. What he thinks about us concerns only himself, not us. > > -------- ... S: These words (of KS's) are so true. When we are friendly or try to assist, we have no say at all in what the response will be and in this sense it's not our affair. Everyone will respond to such gestures according to accumulations and tendencies. "What he thinks about us concerns only himself, not us". Metta, Sarah ========== #94671 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Connie & all, >C: The point I've been trying to make regarding "radiation" is that > unless we appreciate the difference between naama and ruupa our > understanding of experience is, to say the least, highly suspect. So > much for tact. I'd suggest that naama will never be known by > "microscopic" or other mechanical means. .... S: I'd go further still and say that without an understanding of namas and rupas, concepts and microscopes won't be understood either for what they are either. Metta, Sarah ====== #94672 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > For Sarah: > Below are some examples from commentary that clearly are giving > directives about what does and does not work in metta meditation. .... S: ....or an explanation of what does and does not occur or 'does not work'. We can only be friendly to living beings. .... > It would not make sense to interpret this as "it may happen this way > and if it does, this will also happen" when it is clearly giving > examples of how to switch the object of metta so that the attainment > of the jhaana is effected. .... S: I think the question is: 'Who does such switching?' 'Is attainment of jhaana effected just by switching the object?' ... > I think that rather than try to skew some of the syntactical > structures in these passages to make it appear that they were written > without any indication of an agent that might act upon them, one can > say that reading the passage will have the desired effect upon a > consciousness that is ready to receive it, and it can be read just the > way it is translated without admitting agency or volition to a > "person" who receives it. .... S: Yes, I agree that any comments, any text, any translation can be read rightly or wrongly. Here, I was merely pointing out that we *should* be too influenced by the translator's use of *should* for the Pali which *can* be translated in other ways, such as by *can* or *may*. .... > > In other words, I think that you can translate the Pali either way and > still understand that even if a person is addressed or invoked by > convention, that this does not mean that either the author of the > commentary believed that there is a volitional person involved, or > that such a person is necessary in order for the instruction to have > its effect. .... S: Nicely put. Again, read in the context of the whole Visuddhimagga, there's no question of a *person* involved to do or follow any instructions. There are transitory dhammas conditioning other transitory dhammas. That's all. ... > > Hopefully what I have said is not too unclear - it wasn't too easy to > get it down.... .... S: Actually, it was well put down and I appreciated your comments. You've always been a good 'mediator' here, Rob:-). Metta, Sarah > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > 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." =========== #94673 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. I am glad that my statement accorded with your understanding of the work to be done; and thank you for your kind acknowledgment. Although my way of looking at things is a little bit different, I do appreciate the fine detail of much of the analysis here; and the fact that we are all trying, with our human frailty, to make some headway in this difficult quest - to break through to the Buddha's understanding. It's not for the faint of heart I guess..... And I am sometimes amazed at the thoroughness and dedication with which many here study the suttas and commentaries. Best Regards, Rob E. ============================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & all, > > I liked the way you expressed the following and, as always, the > courtesy in your writing: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > >....Still I > > appreciate the fine precision with which many in this group attempt to > > discern the nature of reality. It is a worthwhile occupation... ===================================== #94674 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: Rob E. > > In other words, I think that you can translate the Pali either way > and > > still understand that even if a person is addressed or invoked by > > convention, that this does not mean that either the author of the > > commentary believed that there is a volitional person involved, or > > that such a person is necessary in order for the instruction to have > > its effect. > .... > S: Nicely put. Again, read in the context of the whole Visuddhimagga, > there's no question of a *person* involved to do or follow any > instructions. There are transitory dhammas conditioning other > transitory dhammas. That's all. Just wanted to highlight this point, on which I think we agree. I don't think I'll be able to learn Pali anytime soon, but it would be interesting to understand the full range of meanings that the words connote. Best, Rob E. ============================== #94675 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation epsteinrob Hi Jon! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > The view that you and I have of beings and a self is also a view of > khandhas: a wrong view;-)). It arises from time to time. It is not > the same as thinking in terms of people and things, which may or may > not be accompanied by wrong view (and often is not). > > This view is gradually displaced as panna is developed. The view is > displaced, but the thinking in terms of people and things goes on. > > As I understand it, anyway. > > Jon > I guess the question that remains for me then is a pretty simplistic one, but, given the non-existence of beings as anything but kandhas, what is the purpose of metta? Best, Rob E. ========================= #94676 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:56 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > "Namas experience and object: rupas don't experience anything." That > is right understanding, and it will remain right understanding even > after nibbana has been experienced. > > Ken H > Well, whatever I may think, I appreciate the clear explanation. It's a good reminder of this philosophy, and I will consider it. The basic idea makes sense, to be sure. Best, Robert ==================== #94677 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:00 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > You are saying that a self would cling less to dhammas knowing that > they are not real. From the little I know about the self (my own), it > has a great variety of trick up its sleeves in order to preserve > itself and flourish, including, but not limited to :-), the > relativity theory. > > Alberto > It is my understanding that Buddha warned against *all* extremes of view: the relativistic may be one, but the absolutist or eternalist, and the denial of realities or annihilationist, would be others. It seems to me that an espousal of the absolute reality of dhammas outside of nibbana is an extreme view as well. Best, Robert - - - - - - - - - - #94678 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Sat, 10/1/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >.... Although my way of looking at things is a little bit different, I do appreciate the fine detail of much of the analysis here; and the fact that we are all trying, with our human frailty, to make some headway in this difficult quest - to break through to the Buddha's understanding. It's not for the faint of heart I guess..... .... S: Again, nicely put.... I think that with the different ways 'of looking at things', we do sometimes forget that we're all, as you put it, 'with our human frailty, to make some headway in this difficult quest...'. ... >And I am sometimes amazed at the thoroughness and dedication with which many here study the suttas and commentaries. ... S: And I think the priority that so many give here to 'this difficult quest' and the consideration of the Buddha's teachings. Thanks again for your considerate posts, Rob. I've always appreciated your presence. Metta, Sarah p.s Are you still in Washington D.C.? Snowed up and psyched up there these days, I'm sure! =========== #94679 From: TGrand Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner TGrand458 Hi All In a message dated 1/9/2009 3:43:17 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan writes: 'Conditionality' refers to the way in which dhammas with distinct characteristics are cause and effect for each other. ........................................................ TG: Insight into 'conditionality' would reveal that there are no separate dhammas with distinct characteristics that are causes and effects for each other. (A rather awkward assertion.) Insight into conditionality reveals that the 'appearances' of "things" being distinct with their own characteristics is a delusional view. Though multifarious qualities emerge in samsara, "these appearances/arisings" are always "propped up" by "something else" and are hollow of anything "of themselves." Hence the Buddha called them -- hollow, empty, void, coreless, like a mirage, like a trick, insubstantial, no-self. Even each of the Four Great Elements are "propped up" by the other three. (Its in the commentaries, so you know its true.) "Each" 'element' has a quality BUT lacks "its own" quality because qualities are always "borrowed" (dependent) and are never "possessed" by anything. TG #94680 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Connie & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > connie: so if we're going to say "radiating metta" it's in the sense of treating the cancer of hate in our own being. .... S: That's it! .... > javanas in the sense or mind door process or both? must be both. she guesses. .... S: You guessed a little better later.... people as object, not sensations in the chest or anything else... Of course, there can be other cittas with adosa in the sense-door process...but not metta. Metta, Sarah ====== #94681 From: TGrand Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand458 Hi Herman and Scott In a message dated 1/9/2009 9:03:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan writes: H: "Your own views are tying you up in knots. How do you propose to turn what is the process of consciousness being produced as the product of form, sense base and contact, into a thing with its own characteristic?c Scott: What is 'form?' What is 'sense base?' What is 'contact?' Why do you refer to these designations of realities when you neither believe in realities nor their characteristics? You can't eat your cake and have it too. ................................................................ TG: Where the heck does the Buddha call these "designations of realities"? I don't think anywhere. He DOES call them coreless, empty, hollow, insubstantial, impermanent, like a mirage, like a trick, etc. Since the Buddha was allowed to speak of them without ever indicating they were "designations of realities," I guess we are allowed to do so as well without being forced into a view the Buddha did not teach. Though a pretty good case can be made that he went out of his way NOT to call them realities. TG OUT #94682 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and Commentary, part 3. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Scott, Connie & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: ... > Sutta: > DN 33.1.10(39) Three grounds for reproof: based on what has been seen, > heard, suspected. > (Tii.ni codanaavatthuuni: di.t.thena, sutena, parisa'nkaaya.) > ------------ > N: The Co explains bases for reproof as reasons of reproof. It > elaborates: on having seen a transgression he reproves: seen by the > fleshly eye or by the divine eye. As to he reproves after having > heard: having heard words of someone else by the natural ear or by > the divine ear. > --------- > N: The divine eye and the divine ear are supranatural powers acquired > through jhaana. > --------- > As to based on what is suspected, the Co adds: suspected by seeing, > by hearing and by experiencing through the other doorways (muta). > This is an explanation in brief and the Co. to the Vinaya gives the > detailed explanation. > ----------- > The subco: reproval is the inquiry as to the conduct of someone else > in order to correct him. > -------------- > Co: Codanaavatthuuniiti codanaakaara.naani. Di.t.thenaati > ma.msacakkhunaa vaa dibbacakkhunaa vaa viitikkama.m disvaa codeti.... .... S: Again it comes back to ordinary life - reproofs can be made with kusala or akusala cittas, such as reprimanding children or subordinate staff in an office. It's not the action as such, but the cittas that determine what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Reproofs can be with metta too. Thanks for the series..... Metta, Sarah ========= #94683 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:46 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > It is my understanding that Buddha warned against *all* extremes of > view: the relativistic may be one, but the absolutist or eternalist, > and the denial of realities or annihilationist, would be others. It > seems to me that an espousal of the absolute reality of dhammas > outside of nibbana is an extreme view as well. > One absolutely real dhamma, nibbana, it's better than none :-) Alberto PS BTW, eternalist view, sassata ditthi, refers to the self, not to dhammas. #94684 From: TGrand Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458 Hi Sarah In a message dated 1/9/2009 8:55:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@yahoo.co.uk writes: Hi TG & all, --- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , TGrand458@.., TG > TG: Conditions will do whatever they do in accordance with conditional > interactions. (I know, what is a condition.) ;-) ... S: A condition now like visible object or seeing or thinking about what is seen? ..................................................... TG: Just a joking reference to Scott asking me -- what is a condition? -- in the past. ....................................................... .... >> "A Theravada Buddhist discussion forum for anyone interested in > understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets > of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the > Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient > commentaries of that tradition." > > ............ .... .... .... . > > > TG: Well, with what I have said above, and being a former Theravadin monk, > and 28 years of pursuing the Buddha's teaching, I will pretentiously assume > that I am qualified to discuss the above criteria even if poorly. I note that > the above does not require unanimous agreement as to the meaning within such > texts. .... S: :-) Can you tell us where and when you were a monk. Interested to hear more, TG. .......................................... TG: Sri Lanka. 1983. I rather have not even brought it up but Scott seems to think I am the enemy of Theravada so it was just to counter that type of slant. ............................................ .... >....So the > disagreement is profound because it rests on the most important of matters. The "heart" of the practice. ... S: Yes, I agree with this too and I know that this is why we all feel strongly at times and why people start shouting at times (yes, by conditions!)conditions!), even though there's no need as Nina has Do you agree that the "heart" of the practice is always *now*? ................................................ TG: No. The "heart" is insight which deals with directly realizing the nature of phenomena, and mental and physical operations and interactions, and how such leads to suffering or away from it. Such insight is based on both experiential observations and conceptual understandings associated with these concerns. The Satipatthana Sutta, one of the Suttas that most strongly supports your "now" view, deals with much conceptual analysis...including analysis of external phenomena. I don't know why you don't take into account the whole Sutta. ................................................. ... >>Scott: Now, that the Dhamma is the teacher, and that dhammas are the teachers, I have no doubt. That a dhamma has a characteristic and that these differ the one from the other is obvious to anyone whose ever experienced even the tenderest arising of sati in relation to any aspect of experience. ... S: I thought that Scott expressed this well, but you replied: ......................................................... TG: Yea, good thing you didn't include the insults that preceded this wonderfully expressed statement. :-/ ........................................................ ... > TG: Any child can distinguish different experiences. ... S: Yes, but a child takes all these experiences for 'self'. ................................................................ TG: And you take them for "dhammas." A theoretical layering of "dhammas" that are the "actors" and "agents of characteristics." .............................................................. .... >Easy to claim -- that > experience is "its own" thing. .... S: I don't see any reference to "its own". Just dhammas which are different from other dhammas. The characteristic of seeing is different from hearing. In other words, seeing is not hearing and neither are 'atta'. ............................................. TG: Its deeper than that. Hearing and seeing are not what they appear to be on the "surface." No, and not "ultimate realities with their own characteristics" either. They are empty, hollow, coreless, insubstantial, void, like a mirage, like a trick. What do you say about that? ............................................................... ... >You've just thrown "dhammas" into the mix > and have deferred and directed the self-view outlook to a particle type theory. ... S: Dhammas - whether classified as khandhas, dhatus or ayatanas are what the Buddha taught as being the 'All'. It is only by understanding dhammas, that 'self-view' can be eradicated. .......................................... TG: Yea, if "they" are understood rightly...as dependent, conditioned, coreless, hollow, empty, insubstantial, impermanent, no-self, etc., etc. ;-) If "they" are taken to be "separate things with their own characteristics" self-view ain't going away. TG OUT #94685 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:33 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation sprlrt Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma friends, > What is the characteristic of nama? What are the conditions to know > nama as nama. > What is the characteristic of rupa? What are the conditions to know > rupa as rupa. > K. Sujin Survey of paramattha dhammas explains clearly and in details nama and rupa dhammas. At the end of each chapter she asks questions that I found very helpful to check my understanding of what she says and at the beginning my score was poor, but it gradually improved. Apart from Nina's, there is also another translation of SoPD by Amara-Varee, available in the Files folder of the Yahoo DSList group. Alberto #94686 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:19 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation szmicio Dear Alberto > Dear Lukas, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > > > Dear Dhamma friends, > > What is the characteristic of nama? What are the conditions to know > > nama as nama. > > What is the characteristic of rupa? What are the conditions to know > > rupa as rupa. > > > > A: K. Sujin Survey of paramattha dhammas explains clearly and in details > nama and rupa dhammas. L: Yeah I find it very beneficial when there are proper conditions for yoniso mansikara. But it happens so rare even when I read SoPD. > A: At the end of each chapter she asks questions > that I found very helpful to check my understanding of what she says > and at the beginning my score was poor, but it gradually improved. L: Thanks again alberto, I always find your responds to me very helpful. But here i want to discuss one point, which is not pretty clear for me. I also think about "me" and "I" which sees and hears, which do bad actions, which is the owner of his own kamma(just thinking with akusala, not kusala consideration if you know what i mean). What if reading and studing leads to akusala, what if it condition akusala? What if there is only reading and considering and there is no yoniso manasikara? Best wishes Lukas #94687 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:17 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation sprlrt Dear Lukas, L: I also think about "me" and "I" which sees and hears, which do bad actions, which is the owner of his own kamma(just thinking with akusala, not kusala consideration if you know what i mean). A: Dhammas are anatta, they don't belong to anyone, and kamma (kusala or akusala) and vipaka are dhammas, of which we know very little about, though the self thinks to know a lot about it already. L: What if reading and studing leads to akusala, what if it condition akusala? What if there is only reading and considering and there is no yoniso manasikara? A: I think that just aknowledging that there is that risk indicates proper considering of what one has studied. Alberto #94688 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott and Herman - In a message dated 1/9/2009 5:13:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan writes: Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Impermanence is as good a word as others like it. Whatever word is used, it is crucial in understanding the meaning of anicca that it can never apply to a single thing. Because a thing cannot be what it is, yet be impermanent. That would be like saying that while being what it is, a thing is not what it is. Anicca puts the sword to sabhava." Scott: All conditioned realities have the characteristic of impermanence. What you say above contradicts this. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here's my take on this: There are (at least) two perspectives on impermanence. One is that there are separate realities which arise, exist for a brief time, and then cease. A second is that change is constant, with nothing, except conventionally, remaining "as is" for any time at all. I think of the first of these as a view that is both substantialist and annihilationist, with a substantial reality arising (where an instant before it did not exist), remaining briefly as a true existent, and then being annihilated. Prior to its arising, it "was not," during the time of its existence it has own being, essence, and substantial nature, and after its utter destruction, yet again it "is not." The second of these perspectives, the one that is my perspective, is as radical as an impermanence principle as can be, and it directly implies anatta and nisabhava (if that's the correct negative prefix), and the opposite of reification, yet not being nihilist. It is a view which involves becoming rather than being. --------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard (From the Diamond Sutra) #94689 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/9/2009 11:03:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan writes: Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Your own views are tying you up in knots. How do you propose to turn what is the process of consciousness being produced as the product of form, sense base and contact, into a thing with its own characteristic?" Scott: What is 'form?' What is 'sense base?' What is 'contact?' Why do you refer to these designations of realities when you neither believe in realities nor their characteristics? You can't eat your cake and have it too. Sincerely, Scott. =============================== IMO, these are *not* realities, but conventionalities. The only reality is beyond condition and description, and, as regards delineation is at best pointed to, like the proverbial Zen finger pointing at the moon. It is only nibbana that is "real". With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94690 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:08 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (41) scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing from last: #94425 Threes (40) (cy: #94582): CSCD Tisso sukhuupapattiyo [sukhupapattiyo (syaa. pii. ka.)] â€" santaavuso sattaa [sattaa sukha.m (syaa. ka.m.)] uppaadetvaa uppaadetvaa sukha.m viharanti, seyyathaapi devaa brahmakaayikaa. Aya.m pa.thamaa sukhuupapatti. Santaavuso, sattaa sukhena abhisannaa parisannaa paripuuraa paripphu.taa. Te kadaaci karahaci udaana.m udaanenti â€" nti , seyyathaapi devaa aabhassaraa. Aya.m dutiyaa sukhuupapatti. Santaavuso, sattaa sukhena abhisannaa parisannaa paripuuraa paripphu.taa. Te santa.myeva tusitaa [santusitaa (syaa. ka.m.)] sukha.m [cittasukha.m (syaa. ka.)] pa.tisa.mvedenti, seyyathaapi devaa subhaki.nhaa. Aya.m tatiyaa sukhuupapatti . Walshe DN 33.1.10(41) 'Three happy rebirths:*1046 There are beings who, having continually produced happiness now dwell in happiness, such as devas of the Brahmaa group. There are beings who are overflowing with happiness, drenched with it, full of it, immersed in it, so that they occasionally exclaim: 'Oh what bliss!' such as the Radiant devas. There are beings…immersed in happiness, who, supremely blissful, [iii 219] experience only perfect happiness, such as the Lustrous devas. Olds [ 3.41 ] Three ways of feeling pleasure:[ 3.41 ] There are beings, friends, that, producing and having produced pleasure, live therein, in the same way as the gods of the Brahma worlds. There are beings, friends, that are soaked, permeated, suffused and saturated with happiness who time and time again exclaim: 'Ah the joy! Ah the joy!" in the same way as the gods of the Abhassara Realm. There are beings, friends, that are soaked, permeated, suffused and saturated with happiness who are swept away by the experience of such delight in the same way as the gods of the Subhakinna Realm. RDs [ 219 ][ 3.41 ] Three happy rebirths:--(1) There are beings, friends, who [in a former birth] having continually produced, dwell now in happiness; such are the devas of the Brahmaa group. (2) There are beings who are soaked and steeped in happiness, full of it, pervaded by it. They from time to time pour forth ecstatic utterance saying: 'Oh the bliss of it!' Ah what happiness!' Such are the Radiant Devas.3.41 (3) There are beings who are similarly filled with happiness ... pervaded by it; they, serenely blissful, experience onlysublime happiness. Such are the Luminous Devas. *walshe: 1046 These are all in the World of Form. **olds: [ 3.41 ] (Tisso sukhupapattiyo (contrast with previous). Sant'aavuso sattaa uppaadetvaa uppaadetvaa sukha.m viharanti, seyyathaa pi devaa Brahma-kaayiikaa. . . . sukhena abhisannaa parisannaa paripuuraa paripphu.taa, te kadaaci karahaci udaana.m udaanenti 'Aho sukha.m aho sukhan ti,' seyyathaa pi devaa Abhassaraa. . . . sukhena abhisannaa parisannaa paripuuraa paripphu.taa, tesan ta.m yeva tusitaa sukha.m patisa.mvedenti, seyyathaa pi devaa Subha-ki.n.naa. In some places both these categories of gods utter "Oh the Joy." (see: Abhassara and Subhakinna Realms) Here only the former make the utterance. This makes good sense in terms of describing a spectrum of experience. Here at least, the distinction in the latter two can be understood in relation to the Hindu and Buddhist view that less is better. The gods of the Abhassara realm "stream radiance" and "utter sounds" while the gods of the Subha-kinna realm, being more refined, are "luminous" and don't resort to the utterance of sounds of joy. (In the days before the domination of the world by American Pop culture there used to be a similar phenomena observable in the contrast of the reactions to music of American and European youth: the American youth would move around in time to the music while the Europeans would sit perfectly still. The former, while holding themselves superior to the latter, actually fend off the full scope of the experience of the music by their reaction which substitutes the experience of themselves reacting to the music for the experience of the music, while the latter allowed the experience to pervade their beings.) ***rd: 3.41Devaa AAbhassaraa. Cf. Kindred Sayings, p. 144, and Compendium, p. 138. 3.41.1Subhaki.nha devas; ninth in the Ruupa worlds. For tesan ta.n yeva the Comy. reads te santam eva, santam meaning pa.nita.n. Sincerely, Scott, connie, Nina. #94691 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:14 am Subject: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34. no 9. nilovg Dear friends, For the person who develops satipatthåna naturally the aim is to understand realities and thereby to become detached from them. However, if one has no understanding yet one cannot become detached. Can you, while you try to make citta concentrate on one object, let go of desire? If you try to concentrate you do not develop paññå with the aim of understanding realities and becoming detached. If people try to do something other than developing satipatthåna naturally, they will not know as they are the characteristics of realities which are appearing at this moment. Hearing is real, it appears naturally, and so it is with thinking, happy feeling or unhappy feeling; they all appear naturally, they are all dhammas, realities. If sati does not arise and is not aware of realities, there is not the development of satipatthåna. What is the use of combining different methods of practice if there is no understanding of nåma and rúpa as they appear already through the six doors? Q. : When I combine different methods I acquire more understanding of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå. They are explained in the textbooks I have read. I also have read about mindfulness of breathing and this helps me not to be distracted by other matters. If I have a problem which I cannot solve I apply myself to mindfulness of breathing. But if I try to think, “seeing through the eyes is nåma, it is non-self”, or, “hearing is non-self”, I feel confused. There is still self all the time, self who is acting, who is thinking. I feel confused and worried about that. S. : If you combine different ways of practice you are bound to become worried, because there is no paññå which investigates and studies the characteristics of realities as they naturally appear. You said that the benefit derived from your way of practice is knowing the three general characteristics of realities: impermanence, dukkha and anatta. However, that is only textbook knowledge of the three characteristics. If you do not know nåma and rúpa as they appear, how can you know the three general characteristics of nåma and rúpa? They must be characteristics of the nåma and rúpa which appear, one at a time. It is through insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåna, that the three general characteristics are penetrated. There cannot be vipassanå ñåna if one does not know the different characteristics of the nåmas and rúpas as they appear one at a time. If one does not know the difference between the characteristic of nåma and the characteristic of rúpa, the three general characteristics of realities cannot be penetrated. ---------------- Nina. #94692 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:44 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "16. If this resentment subsides when he strives and makes effort in this way, it is good. If not, then he should remove irritation by remembering some controlled and purified state in that person, which inspires confidence when remembered." The Path of Purity. "If, as he strives and makes effort thus, the hatred subsides, well and good. If not, then he should recall any calm and pure state which, when brought to mind, brings composure and supresses the hatred." Tasseva.m gha.tayato vaayamato sace ta.m pa.tigha.m vuupasammati, icceta.m kusala.m. No ce vuupasammati, atha yo yo dhammo tassa puggalassa vuupasanto hoti parisuddho, anussariyamaano pasaada.m aavahati, ta.m taṃ anussaritvaa aaghaato pa.tivinetabbo. Sincerely, Scott. #94693 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Dear Alex, Op 9-jan-2009, om 20:39 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > also reminded not to take jhaana for self. > > I don't consider Jhana as self or mine. So? ------- N: Only the sotaapanna has eradicated the wrong view of self. ------- > > > A: > the jhaanacitta experiences bodily impressions: > > They do. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the > fact. ---------- N: The aim of jhana is to be temporarily frre from sense objects and clinging to them. I quote a discussion from Rob K's forum I had with someone else: ( this is the link: ------ N: Book of Analysis (Vibhanga), the second Book of the Abhidhamma: Ch 12, Analysis of Jhana. QUOTE §538: Abandoning covetousness in the world means: ...Therein what is the world? The five aggregates (as objects of) the attachments are the world... § 564: Aloof from sense pleasures... §602; Having wholly passed the perceptions of form... § 603: Terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement means: ...Visible (object) operception, audible (object) perception... § 625: Therein, what is the first jhaana? Herein at the time when a bhikkhu develops the path for rebirth in the plane of form [N:of rupa- brahmas], he, aloof from sense pleasures, aloof from bad states, attains and dwells in earth device first jhaana... In this chapter the jhana-factors are dealt with and the stages of rupa-jhana and arupa-jhana. **** Now the difficult text of the Great Discourse on Causation. At the end is a text you also found difficult: QUOTE One possessing material form sees material forms. This is the first emancipation. Vimokkha: release, freedom. How could that be real freedom, we can ask? Without the Co we cannot understand this very well. Except that in the sutta the word vimokkha is used, emancipation. So, it must be different from seeing right now, with all the clinging involved. The Co and subco helps me, but it may not help you, as I understand. QUOTE Subco: Possessing material form means endowed with the material form included in one's own continuity...with the eye of jhaana one sees material forms such as the blue kasina, etc. externally. He arouses jhana through the kasinas based on internal objects, such as hairs of the body (blue kasina). This is really complicated, but it clarifies that it is not ordinary seeing of visible object. As to more details on this practice, see Nyanatiloka Buddhist dictionary, under abhibhaayatana. One can take a large or small part of the body and use that as a kasina subject of meditation. -------- Dhammasangani 1019: QUOTE Which are states that are limited (paritta)? All states [N ;dhammas] good, bad and indeterminate, which relate to the universe of sense (kaamaavacara); in other words the five khandhas. N: Paritta (insignificant) denotes all kaamaavacaara dhammas. Dhsg 1020: QUOTE Which are the states that are sublime (mahaggata)? N: It goes on about which states have which objects. Dsgn 161: QUOTE pathavikasina.m, the earth kasina is the subject of the jhanas. G: But does it state that earth kasina is necessarily not paritta and therefore not kamavacara? And does it give other objects (subjects) of jhana besides the ten kasinas? If so, does it state that these objects (subjects) are necessarily not paritta and therefore not kamavacara? N: Yes, they are under the heading of ruupaavacara-kusala.m, Ch II. QUOTE § 203: When, he may attain to the heavens of form, he cultivates the way [thereto], aloof from sensuous desires, aloof from evil ideas, and so, by the artifice of water fire air blue-black yellow red white... enters into and abides in the First jhana... § 263 deals with the asubha. About corpses. --------- Now Book 2 of the Abhidhamma, the Vibhanga, Ch 12. At the end there is an Interrogation, very short and compact. QUOTE Three jhanas should not be said to have low objects or sublime objects; sometimes have immeasurable object.... The fourth jhaana sometimes has low (paritta) object; sometimes has sublime object; sometimes has immeasurable object... Here I was puzzlled, but there is a possibility I had overseen: the superpowers. These have as base the fourth jhana, and, as the Co, the Dispeller of Delusion (p.101) says, they have the body as object in the performing of miracles with a visible body... So, when we look at the Co and then return to the text we see that we could have known, but the Co. drew our attention to this possibility. This is a way to check whether you find it helpful to sometimes look at a co. Another phrase: QUOTE Three jhanas should not be said to have low objects or sublime objects. The Co explains: they have a sign as object. A sign is not a sense object, a paritta object. One can really stumble without the Co. The Atthasalini is the Co to the Dhammasangani. This mentions also (as I referred to) the example of Kalama Alara who did not hear the sound of five hundred Carts. The Points of Controversy debates about sound being a thorn for jhana. It is explained that when in jhana one does not hear nor see. ------------ > > A: Oh... and what are jhanacittas? :) ------ N: See above. Jhaana leads to being less enslaved to sense objects, but temporarily. When one has masteries (vasis) it can be a proximate cause to insight. ------- > > A:I don't feel like continuing with the rest of the post. ------ N: That is quite all right to me. BUt feel free to continue later on. Nina. #94694 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a typo: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Dear Connie, A correction needed. Ven. Pandita uses the term vipassanaa ~jhaana, not vipassanaa ~naa.na. I made a typo. He thinks that while 'in jhaana' one can develop insight. There is a long article in Rob's forum: Here the Ven.'s name is not used. Op 10-jan-2009, om 5:03 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > On Rob K' s forum I see that Ven. Pandita uses the expression > vipassanaa ~naa.na. I have not found this expression before in the > texts. #94695 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:24 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, (Suan, should you wish to continue), Regarding: S: "Parato, rittato, tucchato, su~n~nato, assaamikato, anissarato, avasavattitoti-aadiihi kaara.nehi anattato passati. Section 757, Visuddhimaggo Vol 2. Scott: The English, from ~Naa.namoli, is: "He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on." S: "The above Pali passages clearly indicate that those words are not the synonyms of the word `anatta'. But, their meanings are conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa (anattaati vipassitabbaa)." TG: "This is excellent to hear Suan. Thanks for the information. This is exactly as I had thought. In a sense, these words present the 'ontology' of anatta, i.e., all things. As I see it, this continues to support my misgivings of considering any conditioned phenomena to be 'ultimate realities with their own characteristics.' The Buddha's descriptions for 'insight into nature' are about as antithetical to that viewpoint as it gets." Scott: TG, I think it is quite premature of you, at this point in the considerations, to suddenly devour the bit of information regarding these words and incorporate it as being in support of the view you hold. I think I've tried to help you to curb this sort of hastiness in the recent past. You must control this tape-worm view! ;-) I asked whether these words were synonyms of anatta. Suan kindly produced some commentarial passages (*commentarial* passages, mind you, TG) and gives the opinion that these suggest that, rather than considering these words as synonymous with anatta, they can be seen, as he puts it, as 'conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa.' You suggest that this reflects the 'ontology of anatta.' (As an aside, I think you've been told that you are hung up on the word 'own' in the phrase 'own characteristic.' The focus in on 'characteristic' and the 'own' needn't be a problem - no one is saying that 'own' is important. That there is *characteristic* is certainly being asserted. That you continue to harp on this 'own' only detracts from the more salient aspects of this sort of consideration. You refer to 'characteristic' as 'quality' and I *do* consider these two words to be synonyms, while you may make some hair-splittingly fine distinction between them. Concede the point and lets move on, shall we?) When you bring in the notion of ontology, you are suggesting thereby that we are dealing with being or existence. In the next post I'll provide the Vissudhimagga passage in more detail to provide context and then consider the onological aspects you raise. Sincerely, Scott. #94696 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:39 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, continuing with "the fourfold meaning of arisen", Nyanaponika goes on to say: 2. , that is, "arisen" in the sense of "gone after having been." The Atthasaalinii and the Muula.tiikaa paraphrase the first part of that compound (bhuuta) by anubhavitvaa, "having experienced," and, alternatively, by bhavitvaa, "having been". In the first case it is explained as follows: "By greed, etc., or their opposites, unwholesome or wholesome kamma experiences the taste of the object (aaramma.narasa'm anubhavati)." We suggest that the "experience of the taste" refers to the evaluation of the object by greed, non-greed, etc., which, as the Muula.tiikaa stresses, can be performed only by kammic consciousness at the stage of impulsion (javana). This evaluation impresses a strong mark upon the entire cognitive process, and, together with that associated mark of evaluation, the image of the first perception is taken up by the subsequent states of consciousness. This may happen in two ways: (a) In order to bring about the result of a complete perception such as we are actually aware of, there is required a sequence of several serial processes (viithi) of sixteen moments each. The later viithis, being repetitions or variations of the first, are naturally influenced by the evaluating act of the first viithi. (b) Further, on the occasion of a later encounter with the same or a similar object, the original association of it with a feeling of attraction or aversion will greatly prejudice any later evaluation of it. In such ways a certain portion of past kammic energy (kammavega), quite apart from its maturing later into kammic result (vipaaka), is transmitted to present states of consciousness. To this extent this past evaluating experience (anubhavitvaa), through "having gone" (bhavitvaa), has significance. Being active within the present, it may well be regarded as belonging to that qualified conception of the "present" implied by the term uppanna. connie #94697 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:42 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, Karunadasa continues: The other characteristic which was referred to earlier is the conditioned origination (sappaccayata) of the dhammas. This is akin to the conception discussed above, for it also seeks to explain the nature of the dhammas from a synthetic point of view. In this connection five postulates are recognized as axiomatic, either implicitly or explicitly: (i) It is not empirically possible to identify an absolute original cause of the "dhammic" process. Such a metaphysical conception is not in accord with Buddhism's empirical doctrine of causality, the purpose of which is not to explain how the world began but to describe the uninterrupted continuity of the samsaric process whose absolute beginning is not conceivable.101 In this connection it must also be remembered that as a system of philosophy the Abhidhamma is descriptive and not speculative. (ii) Nothing arises without the appropriate conditions necessary for its origination. This rules out the theory of fortuitous origination (adhiccasamuppannavada).102 notes: 101. (S II 178). 102. D I 28; Ud 69. ok, ok! - so the descriptive -vs- speculative might also be called a matter of faith. Good enough for me, descriptive, and accurately so, it is. connie #94698 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation nilovg Dear Lukas (and Alberto) Op 10-jan-2009, om 11:19 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I also think about "me" and "I" which sees and hears, which do bad > actions, which is the owner of his own kamma(just thinking with > akusala, not kusala consideration if you know what i mean). > What if reading and studing leads to akusala, what if it condition > akusala? What if there is only reading and considering and there is no > yoniso manasikara? ------- N: Alberto gave you a very good answer. When the citta is kusala, there is yoniso manaasikara and when it is akusala there is ayoniso manaasikara. They alternate rapidly and it is not so easy to know when the citta is kusala and when akusala. Through satipatthaana it can be known more clearly. So long as you are not a sotaapanna you are full of the idea of self, that is quite normal. But it is good to realize this. It is a good sign. So, take courage. Nina. #94699 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:22 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, (Suan, should you wish to continue), Regarding the context: Visuddhimagga XXI [7. Knowledge of Reflexion] "47. Being thus desirous of deliverance from all the manifold formations in any kind of becoming, generation, destiny, station, or abode, in order to be delivered from the whole field of formations he again discerns these same formations, attributing to them the three characteristics by knowledge of contemplation of relfexion. So eva.m sabbabhavayonigati.t.thitinivaasagatehi sabhedakehi sa"nkhaarehi muccitukaamo sabbasmaa sa"nkhaaragataa muccitu.m puna te eva.m sa"nkhaare pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena tilakkha.na.m aaropetvaa parigga.nhaati. "48. He sees all formations as impermanent for the following reasons: because they are non-continuous, temporary, limited by rise and fall, disintegrating, fickle, perishable, unenduring, subject to change, coreless, due to be annihilated, formed, subject to death, and so on. So sabbasa"nkhaare anaccantikato, taavakaalikato, uppaadavayaparicchinnato, palokato, calato, pabha"nguto, addhuvato, vipari.naamadhammato, assaarakato, vibhavato, sa"nkhatato, mara.nadhammatotiaadiihi kaara.nehi aniccaati passati. "He sees them as painful for the following reasons: because they are continuously oppressed, hard to bear, the basis of pain, a disease, a tumour, a dart, a calamity, an affliction, a plague, a disaster, a terror, a menace, no protection, no shelter, no refuge, a danger, the root of calamity, murderous, subject to cankers, Maara's bait, subject to birth, subject to ageing, subject to illness, subject to sorrow, subject to lamentation, subject to despair, subject to defilement, and so on. Abhi.nhapa.tipii.lanato, dukkhamato, dukkhavatthuto, rogato, ga.n.dato, sallato, aghato, aabaadhato, iitito, upaddavato, bhayato, upasaggato, ataa.nato, ale.nato, asara.nato, aadiinavato, aghamuulato, vadhakato, saasavato, maaraamisato, jaatidhammato, jaraadhammato, byaadhidhammato, sokadhammato, paridevadhammato, upaayaasadhammato, sa.mkilesikadhammatotiaadiihi kaara.nehi dukkhaati passati. "He sees all formations as foul (ugly) - the ancillary characteristic to that of pain - for the following reasons: because they are objectionable, stinking, disgusting, repulsive, unaffected by disguise, hideous, loathsome, and so on. Aja~n~nato, duggandhato, jegucchato, pa.tikkuulato, ama.n.danaarahato, viruupato, biibhacchatotiaadiihi kaara.nehi dukkhalakkha.nassa parivaarabhuutato asubhato passati. "He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on. Parato, rittato, tucchato, su~n~nato, assaamikato, anissarato, avasavattitotiaadiihi kaara.nehi anattato passati. "It is when he sees formations in this way that he is said to discern them by attributing to them the three characteristics." Eva~nhi passataanena tilakkha.na.m aaropetvaa sa"nkhaaraa pariggahitaa naama honti. Scott: I'll examine this in more detail, TG, but here is the whole passage. Are you sure you want to rush in a accept this? Read carefully before agreeing (or agree and win my favour). ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #94700 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Hi Howard, Op 9-jan-2009, om 13:59 heeft upasaka het volgende geschreven: > you do not account for the clear > change in terminology with regard to the 8th and 9th jhanas from > the first 7. > In fact, in the Anupada Sutta, in the first 7, there is said of the > cetasikas > in effect "these states were defined by him one by one AS THEY > OCCURRED; > known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they > disappeared." Only once the sutta gets to the 8th jhana is it said > " "He emerged mindful > from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated the states > that had > passed, ceased and changed ..." -------- N: I consulted the Thai translation as well and the Co. in Thai. Yes, after the 8th jhaana the words are different. The Co states that only Buddhas can realize the jhaanacitta and jhaanafactors since they are so subtle, they are only present in a residual formation. So, of this stage Saariputta could not define the jhaanafactors one by one. We read that Saariputta said that there is a further escape and 'There is zealous practice for him concerning that' (PTS translation). The co states that he developed samatha and vipassana pairwise. It states that he realized the four noble Truths by magga- pa~n~naa (lokuttara pa~n~naa) and that the aasavas were eradicated. Since he developed both samatha and vipassana there could be a round (vara, round of cittas) of attaining arahatship and a round of entering cessation, the co explains. We read in the sutta that he enters again the 8th jhaana and realizes the stopping of perception and feeling. 'And having seen by means of intuitive wisdom, his cankers are utterly destroyed. Mindful he emerges from that attainment'. This is the case of Saariputta, only second in wisdom to the Buddha. It is a very special case, and who could practise like that? Cessation is only possible for anaagaamis and arahats who have developed both samatha and vipassanaa. ***** Nina. #94701 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie, Op 9-jan-2009, om 21:55 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Sometimes I think this corner was a stupid idea, just apologize and > drop it, but I keep going anyway. ------ N: As I said, it can be useful in order to understand different opinions. But for this busy list the segments could be shorter, otherwise some people are unable to read it. Nina. #94702 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:04 am Subject: Re: cornerstone scottduncan2 Dear connie, Regarding: c: "Yes, at least. I was really objecting to taking Karunadasa's saying 'the mental as well as the material dhammas are not actually separable one from another' too far. Just that words can be useful tools or become so important in their own right that they become meaningless or just senseless weapons." Scott: Alas, thou art troubled. I always think of di.t.thi when I consider such as the above. And I mean micchaa-di.t.thi. Micchaa di.t.thi is incorporative. Micchaa di.t.thi is like a hungry mouth. Without right understanding, at any level, micchaa-di.t.thi just eats and eats and incorporates and incorporates. You can easily see this in any discussion. Miccaa-di.t.thi is not swift to alteration. c: "Sometimes I think this corner was a stupid idea, just apologize and drop it, but I keep going anyway. I thought at first we all might come to some agreement on terms but it doesn't seem like we ever really will and that will just have to be ok. It isn't the words that matter, anyway and agreement simply for the sake of agreement wouldn't have any meaning, either. Guess I just have to tell myself the bickering and debating is actually a good sign. But blah, blah... where's that ninth moment now?" Scott: All corners are stupid ideas. And all corners are good ideas. I've clung to the wish for peaceful discussions where Dhamma can be discussed in a hushed and harmonious space. I think that that 'space' is reserved for the moments in which understanding arises. Therein is peace. Corners give words and it is up to conditions whether or not understanding and Right View develops. Press on, O Woman of Sorrow. Sincerely, Scott. #94703 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "Here's my take on this: There are (at least) two perspectives on impermanence. One is that there are separate realities which arise, exist for a brief time, and then cease...I think of the first of these as a view that is both substantialist and annihilationist, with a substantial reality arising (where an instant before it did not exist), remaining briefly as a true existent, and then being annihilated. Prior to its arising, it 'was not,' during the time of its existence it has own being, essence, and substantial nature, and after its utter destruction, yet again it 'is not...'" Scott: Howard, you don't understand ucchedavaada. This wrong view refers to a belief that death ushers in a complete end to any continuation of experience, and is twice wrong because the view includes a belief in a literal being which both exists for real (which it does not) and is annihilated upon death (which it is not for it never existed). So yes, when a dhamma ceases, and in so doing is condition for the immediate arising of a subsequent dhamma, it is gone, annihilated. No one says that another dhamma, conditioned by the ceasing of the former, will never happen. The problem is that the next one keeps arising, and the next, and so on. And, to say it yet again, dhammas are realities. Insubstanitality, as you go on to promote, is not on at all, for all the reasons I keep advocating. Sincerely, Scott. #94704 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "IMO, these are *not* realities, but conventionalities. The only reality is beyond condition and description, and, as regards delineation is at best pointed to, like the proverbial Zen finger pointing at the moon. It is only nibbana that is 'real'." Scott: The above, as an argument, has form but no substance. It makes a nice poem and would be good on a Zen calender but it makes no meaningful point in the discussion. What were you hoping to say, of substance, by way of this rather bathetic statement? Sincerely, Scott. #94705 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:35 am Subject: Re: a typo: Vipassana in Jhana nichiconn Dear Nina, All, N: He thinks that while 'in jhaana' one can develop insight. There is a long article in Rob's forum: forums/index.php?showtopi\ c=318 > c: Not only that, but his ideas on the 'luminous citta' seem off base to me. But that's another old go-round here - for that, see UP's. The translations do say "the insight which occurs from access till the ecstasy is called intuition", but that doesn't seem like what the article was talking about, either. Again, I wouldn't say that was 'while in jhaana'. peace, connie #94706 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:37 am Subject: Report from the RSPCS nichiconn Dear Herman, H: RSPCS are recommending prosecution on the basis that the deciphering codes marketed by the commentators are conducive to impotence. c: Pursuant to a finding that we are indeed impotent and it is the subjects under investigation that are/have the power, further study is advised. Thank you for your continued support and on-going interest in peaceful resolutions. connie #94707 From: upasaka Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:20:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan writes: And, to say it yet again, dhammas are realities. Insubstanitality, as you go on to promote, is not on at all, for all the reasons I keep advocating. ========================== Do you ever say "in my opinion" or "as I understand it"? Or do you claim to direct knowing of truth and reality? With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94708 From: upasaka Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:28:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "IMO, these are *not* realities, but conventionalities. The only reality is beyond condition and description, and, as regards delineation is at best pointed to, like the proverbial Zen finger pointing at the moon. It is only nibbana that is 'real'." Scott: The above, as an argument, has form but no substance. It makes a nice poem and would be good on a Zen calender but it makes no meaningful point in the discussion. What were you hoping to say, of substance, by way of this rather bathetic statement? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm, 'bathetic' - a synonym for 'pathetic'. Scott, I don't respond well to insults and rudeness. That I respond at all is just a bow to civility. ------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. =========================== With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94709 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Do you ever say 'in my opinion' or 'as I understand it'? Or do you claim to direct knowing of truth and reality?" Scott: One ought to consider it a given, Howard, that its an opinion. You addressed me. I replied. Can we simply discuss without unnecessary the emotions? Its not about the person. Sincerely, Scott. #94710 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:37 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation szmicio Dear Nina, > N: They alternate rapidly and it is not so easy to know > when the citta is kusala and when akusala. L: Yeah. It's really hard to know. It often reminds me that only panna can know it, what is kusala or not. And it's conditioned. Is there any diffrence beetwen panna which knows kusala and akusala (knows the conditions for more kusala) and panna which knows nama as nama nad rupa as rupa? What if mind goes somewhere? It thinks all the time, it has its own paths. It is involed in its own stories. with dosa, which is painful and with mana which leads to pain later on. Best wishes Lukas #94711 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: a typo: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, Connie and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Connie, > A correction needed. Ven. Pandita uses the term vipassanaa ~jhaana, > not vipassanaa ~naa.na. I made a typo. > He thinks that while 'in jhaana' one can develop insight. > There is a long article in Rob's forum: forums/index.php?showtopic=318 > > Here the Ven.'s name is not used. > Op 10-jan-2009, om 5:03 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: Of course one can develop insight while in Jhana. That is why they are so important. The only thing is that one will need to exit jhana to express and verbalize it. Insight isn't a secret PhD knowledge that happens like a monologue. It is more of a truth of the heart, rather than the truth of the mind. Thus it isn't impossible in concentrated and calm (without thoughts) state to intuit it. With metta, Alex #94712 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:47 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation szmicio Dear Alberto, I cant find Amara translation on the web, Can you point it out to me? Any difference between Nina and Amara translations? #94713 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, Howard and all, a) Rupa doesn't have to be "visible form". Rupa = matter. It isn't neccesery cakkhuvinnana, cakkhusanna and so on. In one sutta in fact the visible form and rupa are separate categories. Furthermore since one usually mediates with eyes closed, then even if rupa = form seen with the eye, then it doesn't apply. b) MahaMoggallana in Vinaya Pj 4 said that he has HEARD while in 4th to base of infinite consciousness (impertubable). The Buddha has confirmed. c) Sound IS a thorn because it IS heard and when one is in 1st Jhana one isn't far from kamacchanda and thus kama can overtake one and make one exit Jhana. d) lets not forget that Buddha has ridiculed "see nothing, hear nothing" training of Brahman Parasivi in MN152. I do NOT think that the Buddha would ridicule what he is said to have taught himself. e) The pali formulas for 1st Jhana do NOT include entering catatonic state without seeing or hearing. Only in the aruppa stages does one transcend RUPASANNA, PATIGHASANNA and NANATTASANNA. f) Re: Insight. Lets read MN111, MN64 AN9.36 and so on. g) In MN43 it is said that when one is freed from faculties one sees with wisdom aruppa stages. Few paragraphs below the faculties are explained as 5 faculties. h) Even in VsM there is admitted that 5 sense work in Jhana (esp. 1- 3) which is why they are not impertubable and only aruppa stages are. With metta, Alex #94714 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, Howard and all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > This is the case of Saariputta, only second in wisdom to the Buddha. And there are other suttas that show the same path of 4 Jhanas + 4 aruppas + cessation of perception & feelings. ex: mn25 > It is a very special case, and who could practise like that? Those set firmly on Buddha's Dhamma. With metta, Alex #94715 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "Hmm, 'bathetic' - a synonym for 'pathetic'. Scott, I don't respond well to insults and rudeness. That I respond at all is just a bow to civility." Scott: Howard, you are entirely missing the point. First of all, 'bathetic' means maudlin or sentimental and I was saying that I thought your response was like 'bad poetry.' It is not a synonym for 'pathetic.' Please don't find (really heavy) insults where none are intended. I just don't care for that sort of rhetoric in place of reasoned argument. I consider arguments that take the form of bathetic, popular 'Buddhist' sort of rhetoric like 'fingers pointing to the moon' to be hardly useful or substantial. Secondly, I fail to see how you would take a clearly and confidently expressed thesis statement to mean that I was somehow claiming to be right, or however you put it. Everyone does it all the time and I know that it is all just opinions. I am secure in the way I see things and don't feel the need to add unnecessary IMO's, IMHO's, ;-)'s, or :-)'s. Look up 'reaction formation' and you'll see why, more often than not, appearances can be deceiving. If I'm really annoyed about something here I wait awhile to respond - you know, until the annoyance falls away - and that covers the spirit of the law as far as I'm concerned. Thirdly, I just don't think much of the whole popularization of Buddhism - calender rhetoric and what not. Of course its an opinion. I'm just asking you to address the concerns and spare me the rhetoric. Of course its my own opinion. Please lighten up, Howard, its just discussing. Sincerely, Scott. #94716 From: TGrand Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand Hi Howard In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:51:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka writes: It is a view which involves becoming rather than being. ..................................................... TG: Oh, this is nice. That hits it spot on! I'm a little pissed I didn't write this before you, but hey, I'm cool. TG OUT #94717 From: TGrand458 Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand458 Hi Howard In a message dated 1/10/2009 6:08:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka writes: IMO, these are *not* realities, but conventionalities. The only reality is beyond condition and description, and, as regards delineation is at best pointed to, like the proverbial Zen finger pointing at the moon. It is only nibbana that is "real". With metta, Howard ......................................................... TG: Two for Two! This IS annoying. ;-) TG #94718 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The speed of cittas (are they monitored by a "prefect" or law officer) ksheri3 Hi Alberto, Talk about hallucinations. This is the exact point the I feel the Buddha was refering to in the sense that YOU ARE DELUSIONING and that is a representation of your lack of COGNITION. > A: It's ok with me if you call dhammas noumena, colette: IN NO WAY DID I SPECIFY THAT DHARMAS ARE NOUMENA! You build your noumenal world out of a hallucination from the very start, AND IT IS DOCUMENTED THAT I NEVER EVER SAID THAT DHARMAS A NOUMENA. If I did say that they please bring the exact sentence up and please show us all my failure in communicating my thoughts. (Yea, I see the exact same thing when you went off on Scott but that's why I suggestested that Pink Elephants are only observed as long as training wheels are present. it was a joke in line to defuse any situation or negativity that was being manufactured. Here, however, you get to see the manifestation in tact since I've already begun, today, using/applying the concept of "in a room where ya do what ya don't confess. Sun Down you better take care." So now, since I've already "conditioned" my consciousness in the form of prostitution and "buyer-seller" (economics), THEN I don't see how you could get any better of a reading if not nothing more than simply judging the "temperature" of the "catalyst" from Alberto. The rest of the message/reply is nothing more than a hallucination. If you would have covered up your intensions better THEN you might have gotten somewhere with me today on this specifc reply, however, you clearly show your lack of cognition and your lack of Buddhist understanding WHICH MEANS that you are doing nothing more than trying to lead me into a mine field that you have placed for me, specifically. GOOD SHOW, but now you've gotta worry about your protection raquet, insurance company, that lets you do such things since now I've got a lead and a vehicle in which to access that lead. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > C: Lets qualify that. We're speaking of noumena, thoughts and/or thought > processes > > A: It's ok with me if you call dhammas noumena, but then for me > noumena are not thoughts, i.e. what one thinks about (a table, a > person, a dog, a song's lyrics), which I take to be concepts, not > dhammas, realities. <...> #94719 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:12 am Subject: "I'm in the mood. The rythm is right" Foghatt ksheri3 Hi Alberto, That first reality was nice, wasn't it. Watch out though, the joke will shock soooooooooooooo many of your peers and hierarchical belief structures i.e you'll light up like a x-mas tree. I bet Chic Cicero in Florida will be able to relate since he knows "ole sparky" and his adoration of the electric chair, batteries not included. ;) but then for me > noumena are not thoughts, colette: FIRST and FOREMOST, man you gotta get a grip on what exactly noumena and phenomina actually are. You suggest that you have a thought. I am external and can only observe. Your noumena is my phenomina since I am sure that it is happening within you, within the vessel you call your body. You are projecting that outward to me. Is the phenomina which I perceive manufactured outside of your body and placed in your body such as a program being transmitted over data lines, which makes you nothing more than a computer that cannot possibly live on your own without data being transmitted into your consciousness so that you can move. How does a robot on the planet Mars survive after 5 years when it was only designed to survive for a few months? It is because there is a link, a continuous transmission of data. You take your past data which you intend on having me believe, sincew it operated you very well and got you to the point that you are in now, and you expect me to believe those falsehoods that have operated your body, that have moved every muscle you have from your heart to your brain, you expect me to believe that YOUR NOUMENA is MY NOUMENA? BLOW ME. or better said in the cake used at the Homecomming parade in the movie Animal House, "EAT ME". <....> So these are your thoughts that you have and you wish to transpose or project upon me or/and into me. You see them as nothing while you laugh all the way to the bank at my suffering, which you deliberately and intentionally gave to me, and just because I do not play your game in your ball park, you somehow have this problem that causes you to cover up your tracks by placing the blame, the responsibility,entirely upon me. What criminal organization could possibly let you play with me and think they can get away from a trace that leads directly back to them? I have hated that characteristic. Now in HS-12 I was a known Communication & INtelligence Specialist and my nickname was "PARANOID" and my supposed paranoiya is only manifested because I know how smart the people are that employ me and I know they are not as ignorant as the people that I work against, compete with. THEREFORE to mock my employers or superiors in the CIA or KGB or MI6 or Musad or whatever, is to mock me and to perpetuate a blatant delusion. ------------------------------------------------------ <....> i.e. what one thinks about (a table, a > person, a dog, a song's lyrics), which I take to be concepts, not > dhammas, realities. > colette: FINE but why don't you accept responsibilty for even breathing MY OXYGEN THAT YOU OWE ME MONEY FOR. THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR CONCEPTS they sure as hell ain't my concepts so how did your concepts get in the middel of the road (see "There's a dead skunk in the middle-of-the-road and it's stinkin' to hiiiiiiiiigh heaven" Loudin Wainwright III). If they are yours then how do they or even can they interfere with my reality and my noumena IF YOU DO NOT ISSUE THEM IF YOU DO NOT PROJECT THEM? And just what makes them mine even after you have done your damdest to get them in my possession? "Return to sender. Addressee Unknown" Elvis. YOu got those delusions and they are yours, they are your karma. .... Now if ya wanna play a deaper game and a much more worthy gambit than this Theravadan schtick of "Buddhism for the masses" well then let me know <.....> What is a soul worth? is a soul an actual thing? Does a soul even exist? "We built this city on rock & roll" or is that "we sold our soul for rock & roll"? I don't know and I am surely mocked here in Chicago so I guess I don't know squat, THAT MUST MEAN THAT YOU KNOW IT ALL AND YOU KNOW HOW TO CHANGE MY POVERTY, MY SUFFERING, MY SLAVERY, INTO something far more enjoyable. C'mon, god, show me how it's done. toodles, colette > C: Since Nama is subordinate to the existance and power of material > objects, aka THINGS, well, I guess > > A: Not necessarily, according to tipitaka there are planes of > existance without rupa khandha (arupa bhumi, the immaterial pslanes) > which are just "made of" the other four nama khandha only. > <....> #94720 From: TGrand Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@aol.com Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 8:23:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@shaw.ca writes: "It is when he sees formations in this way that he is said to discern them by attributing to them the three characteristics.t Eva~nhi passataanena tilakkha.na.Eva~nhi passataanena tilakkha.na. naama honti. Scott: I'll examine this in more detail, TG, but here is the whole passage. Are you sure you want to rush in a accept this? Read carefully before agreeing (or agree and win my favour). ;-) ......................................................... TG: I'm "jumping in" to support the whole passage above. This latter line, that you would no doubt try to use to uphold "things" as "having their own characteristics," is merely a manner of speaking which you are "reading into" more than the author cared to project IMO. And what are the three characteristics? Impermanence, (the principle of) affliction, no-self. No substance here to be found. No core here to be found. The line I included being the strongest line for you to grasp after as "dhammas theory" evidence from the passage, the overwhelming passage thrust was against it, and the passage that Suan posted, and the COMMENTARY of that, was in complete conflict to your view that these terms -- coreless, empty, void, insubstantial, etc. -- were just synonyms for Anatta. In fact, the commentary denoted they were not. TG #94721 From: TGrand458@aol.com Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand458@aol.com Dear Scott and Howard In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:20:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@shaw.ca writes: Thirdly, I just don't think much of the whole popularization of Buddhism - calender rhetoric and what not. Of course its an opinion. I'm just asking you to address the concerns and spare me the rhetoric. Of course its my own opinion. Please lighten up, Howard, its just discussing. .......................................................... No offense but the majority of your posts come across as insulting, whether any obvious insults or not are contained. Then when people respond in like, or complain, you double the insult by accusing them of insulting behavior. You want us to spare you the "rhetoric," but you dish it out like fries at McDonalds. I'm delighted that you vowed never to post to me again so I won't have to read a response. TG #94722 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/10/2009 1:20:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "Hmm, 'bathetic' - a synonym for 'pathetic'. Scott, I don't respond well to insults and rudeness. That I respond at all is just a bow to civility." Scott: Howard, you are entirely missing the point. First of all, 'bathetic' means maudlin or sentimental and I was saying that I thought your response was like 'bad poetry.' ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I looked up 'bathetic', and it was reported as being derived from bathos as 'pathetic' is derived from 'pathos'. Then, in looking up 'bathos' I found the following: Main Entry: ba·thos Function: noun Pronunciation: 'bA-"thäs Etymology: Greek, literally, depth 1 a : the sudden appearance of the commonplace in otherwise elevated matter or style b : _ANTICLIMAX _ (javascript:lookWord('anticlimax');) 2 : exceptional commonplaceness : _TRITENESS _ (javascript:lookWord('triteness');) 3 : insincere or overdone pathos : _SENTIMENTALISM _ (javascript:lookWord('sentimentalism');) --------------------------------------------------------- Scott: It is not a synonym for 'pathetic.' Please don't find (really heavy) insults where none are intended. I just don't care for that sort of rhetoric in place of reasoned argument. I consider arguments that take the form of bathetic, popular 'Buddhist' sort of rhetoric like 'fingers pointing to the moon' to be hardly useful or substantial. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I back off from my initial degree of taking offense. I apologize for that. However, I still think it impolite to make negative, ad hominem comments as a substitute for addressing issues. There are loads of personal evaluations I could express with regard to your statements about the Dhamma, but to do so would be rude. To the extent that I HAVE done so despite my disapproval of doing so, I apologize. ---------------------------------------------------- Scott: Secondly, I fail to see how you would take a clearly and confidently expressed thesis statement to mean that I was somehow claiming to be right, or however you put it. Everyone does it all the time and I know that it is all just opinions. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I try to make a consistent effort not to do that. I think it fine to say that the Buddha taught such & such, or that such & such is stated in the commentaries, or that I believe such & such, or that such & such is true in my opinion, but I don't think it is fine to say that such & such is a fact when it is simply a claim. ------------------------------------------------ Scott: I am secure in the way I see things and don't feel the need to add unnecessary IMO's, IMHO's, ;-)'s, or :-)'s. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, huh. Well, internet communication needs such things if one is concerned with not being misunderstood and not causing offense. As for your being secure in the way you see things, I suppose that most of us are more or less secure in what we believe. However, I think it the better part of wisdom to hold onto our beliefs quite lightly, because for the most part, there's a helluva lot we don't actually *know*, and holding on to them tightly is a species of clinging. In any case, I'm not a fan of debatable statements being asserted as fact. When someone comes up to me, for example, and says "Jesus is Lord," I think much less of them than if they said "I have faith that Jesus is Lord." ------------------------------------------ Scott: Look up 'reaction formation' and you'll see why, more often than not, appearances can be deceiving. If I'm really annoyed about something here I wait awhile to respond - you know, until the annoyance falls away - and that covers the spirit of the law as far as I'm concerned. Thirdly, I just don't think much of the whole popularization of Buddhism - calender rhetoric and what not. Of course its an opinion. I'm just asking you to address the concerns and spare me the rhetoric. Of course its my own opinion. Please lighten up, Howard, its just discussing. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'll feel better and "lighter" about our discussions, Scott, if you make the attempt to avoid personal critiques. I consider them verbal attacks, and that is not endearing to me. -------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ======================== With metta, Howard P.S. I switched at one point above to prefixing your statements by "Scott:" because my AOL quoting got fouled up. Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94723 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/10/2009 2:09:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: Oh, this is nice. That hits it spot on! I'm a little pissed I didn't write this before you, but hey, I'm cool. -------------------------------------- LOL! ======================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94724 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott, All Back to work with some counter-rhetoric. In a message dated 1/10/2009 7:24:16 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: "He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on." S: "The above Pali passages clearly indicate that those words are not the synonyms of the word `anatta'. But, their meanings are conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa (anattaati vipassitabbaa)vi TG: "This is excellent to hear Suan. Thanks for the information. This is exactly as I had thought. In a sense, these words present the 'ontology' of anatta, i.e., all things. As I see it, this continues to support my misgivings of considering any conditioned phenomena to be 'ultimate realities with their own characteristics.be 'ultimate r descriptions for 'insight into nature' are about as antithetical to that viewpoint as it gets." Scott: TG, I think it is quite premature of you, at this point in the considerations, ................................................................... TG: I agreed with a statement that was correct ... as it agreed with my position. LOL I can't read something that rings true and agree with it without being hasty? Just cause I agree with one statement doesn't mean I stamp with approval the entire commentary culture (of corruption.) ;-) ............................................. to suddenly devour the bit of information regarding these words and incorporate it as being in support of the view you hold. I think I've tried to help you to curb this sort of hastiness in the recent past. You must control this tape-worm view! ;-) ..................................................... TG: <------ on my knees. Oh thank you master, where would I be without your guidance? ......................................................... I asked whether these words were synonyms of anatta. Suan kindly produced some commentarial passages (*commentarial* passages, mind you, TG) ....................................................... TG: OMG, is THAT what THEY were? (screams) -- Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...................................................... and gives the opinion that these suggest that, rather than considering these words as synonymous with anatta, they can be seen, as he puts it, as 'conditions for insight into the nature of anattaa.' You suggest that this reflects the 'ontology of anatta.' (As an aside, I think you've been told that you are hung up on the word 'own' in the phrase 'own characteristic.word 'own' in the 'characteristic' and the 'own' needn't be a problem - no one is saying that 'own' is important. ............................................................. TG: Ahhh, that's what you say now. Before I started 'after it,' the "standard line" in here was "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." Now often the "ultimate" is dropped and the "own" is often dropped....but believe me...they're in there. Lurking like festering cancer eating away at the innards of insight. Can I get bestowed upon me my "bathetic" today, please please. No? Darn it, you always were "Howard's pet." :-( ............................................... That there is *characteristic* is certainly being asserted. That you continue to harp on this 'own' only detracts from the more salient aspects of this sort of consideration. ....................................................... TG: Nonsense. This is a key issue. You see arising entities "dhammas" as having their "own" characteristics. Whether the word "own" is included or not is irrelevant. Its still the same vision. ........................................................................ You refer to 'characteristic' as 'quality' and I *do* consider these two words to be synonyms, while you may make some hair-splittingly fine distinction between them. Concede the point and lets move on, shall we?) ............................................................... TG: Never you dastardly nemesis. I will fight you to the gates of hell close in and swallow us whole....dhammas and all. It is a hair splitting I agree. The hair of the dog that bites you. Its the side of the hair that promotes something "of itself" vs the side of the hair that is fully "self" neutral. I wouldn't object to 'characteristic' so much but that in here it is fully tainted with the idea of "own characteristic." -- A short lived self contained entity. ............................................................ When you bring in the notion of ontology, you are suggesting thereby that we are dealing with being or existence. .............................................................. TG: Yes, the dhammas theory is. However, the Buddha's ontology is an escape from the ontology of existence or non-existence. It is mere conditionality and its ending. TG OUT #94725 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:12 pm Subject: Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc nichiconn To Whom It May Concern: Lemme see if I've got this. First of all, it's meaningless to consider idividual states or dhammas or whatever name we care to call them as having any kind of dictinct identity or reality or truth-value but then when we compile all these non-nesses into something we call a human being, we're supposed to take into consideration how that person's feelings might arise when they take into account their own ideas about how they take what we say after it's all pieced together from a bunch of black and white marks and whatever on their end, assuming they exist at all, because now somehow these 'feelings', which were just more of those dhamma things, are no longer bunkem? maybe i better call up and ask for a different prescription... connie #94726 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/10/2009 4:12:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: These "non-nesses" (LOL!), whether simple or complex, are all not without foundation and not nothing-at-all as I see the matter, but ultimately their nature, as separate entities, is conventional. That's my perspective - neither true existents nor utter nullities, but conventional designations that fall short of being realities, with the sole exception of nibbana. With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94727 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:59 pm Subject: Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc nichiconn Dear Howard, H: These "non-nesses" (LOL!), whether simple or complex, are all not without foundation and not nothing-at-all as I see the matter, but ultimately their nature, as separate entities, is conventional. That's my perspective - neither true existents nor utter nullities, but conventional designations that fall short of being realities, with the sole exception of nibbana. c: laughing! thanks. I'm just all tongue-tied, but I'll try to stick to the word dhamma from here on... or species of that, like sound, feeling, citta, etc. Apart from nibbaana's foundation, if it has one, is that of the other dhammas just a matter of conventional agreement or is it somehow another kind of reality? I don't know if you can work with that question, maybe: what is this foundation? It's a wierdness, alright. Maybe we just have to each talk about things the best we can and in whatever terms make sense to us and just try not to step on each other's toes too much since we're all bound to be awkward. peace, connie #94728 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...The line I included being the strongest line for you to grasp after as 'dhammas theory' evidence from the passage, the overwhelming passage thrust was against it, and the passage that Suan posted, and the COMMENTARY of that, was in complete conflict to your view that these terms -- coreless, empty, void, insubstantial, etc. -- were just synonyms for Anatta. In fact, the commentary denoted they were not." Scott: That these terms are not synonyms for anatta has been shown, which is good. This is no longer in dispute and I'm happy for the clarification. That a contemplation of these ideas can serve as condition for a realisation of anatta was what the commentary seems to suggest. It is this that I will consider. TG: I'm 'jumping in' to support the whole passage above. This latter line, that you would no doubt try to use to uphold 'things' as 'having their own characteristics,' is merely a manner of speaking which you are 'reading into' more than the author cared to project IMO. And what are the three characteristics? Impermanence, (the principle of) affliction, no-self. No substance here to be found. No core here to be found." Scott: Yes, only three characteristics. Voidness is not a characteristic. Insubstantial is not a characteristic. Coreless is not a characteristic. That's what it means when we learn that these terms are *not* synomyms for anatta. Anatta is the characteristic in question. We learn that these auxillary terms refer to an absence of self at the core, to being void of self, and to having no substance that can be taken for self. That this upholds the Insubstantialist view is certainly not shown. This is why I cautioned you against hasty conclusions. I remain unconvinced of the veracity of the view held by the Insubstantialists. Sincerely, Scott. #94729 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:51 am Subject: Dependent Origination is a Process TGrand458@... Hi All The Suttas state -- “Now this has been said by the Bless One: ‘One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma;* one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.’ Sariputta -- MLDB, pg. 284 – 285, The Simile of the Elephants Footprint (Greater), Mahahatthipadopama Sutta, #28 Here, the Suttas say it directly. The Suttas do not say -- *one who sees ultimate realities with their own characteristics sees the Dhamma.* Dependent Origination is a process. It is a process of 'becoming' (as Howard mentioned 'becoming' earlier today.) Understanding the nature of things and the understanding of the Buddha's teaching is derived by "seeing dependent origination." When any conditioned phenomena, such as aggregates, are seen in the light of Dependent Origination, they come to be seen as empty, hollow, coreless, insubstantial, void, like a mirage, etc. Exactly as stated in the Suttas. The "ultimate realities with their own characteristics view" is antithetical to these teachings in the Suttas and therefore has extreme difficulties "digesting" such views presented in the Suttas. TG OUT #94730 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "...I'll feel better and "lighter" about our discussions, Scott, if you make the attempt to avoid personal critiques. I consider them verbal attacks, and that is not endearing to me." Scott: I'm glad you were able to see where I was coming from. I'll continue to directly critique any view I wish to and will make the fact that it is the view that is under scrutiny even clearer in the future so you won't have to worry its personal. I will feel free to have my own strong views about this and that, as do all. Sincerely, Scott. #94731 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 4:49:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...The line I included being the strongest line for you to grasp after as 'dhammas theory' evidence from the passage, the overwhelming passage thrust was against it, and the passage that Suan posted, and the COMMENTARY of that, was in complete conflict to your view that these terms -- coreless, empty, void, insubstantial, etc. -- were just synonyms for Anatta. In fact, the commentary denoted they were not." Scott: That these terms are not synonyms for anatta has been shown, which is good. This is no longer in dispute and I'm happy for the clarification. That a contemplation of these ideas can serve as condition for a realisation of anatta was what the commentary seems to suggest. It is this that I will consider. ............................................ TG: Glad to hear it. I note you pretty much disregard what the Suttas say, but if the commentaries say it, man you're right there willing to have your views altered. ;-) Well, its good to be flexible, I just don't agree with handing so much authority over to the commentaries. .................................................. TG: I'm 'jumping in' to support the whole passage above. This latter line, that you would no doubt try to use to uphold 'things' as 'having their own characteristics,'having their own characteristics, Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, I love the 'dastardly nemesis' thing! Beautiful. I am very honoured. Regarding: TG: "...Ahhh, that's what you say now. Before I started 'after it,' the 'standard line' in here was 'ultimate realities with their own characteristics.' Now often the 'ultimate' is dropped and the 'own' is often dropped....but believe me...they're in there. Lurking like festering cancer eating away at the innards of insight. Can I get bestowed upon me my 'bathetic' today, please please. No? Darn it, you always were 'Howard's pet.' :-(" Scott: For the above prose, I will append the epithet 'Histrionic' or, I you like, 'Melodramatic.' It lacks the bathos displayed by Howard and hence cannot be so labelled. I think I'm less Howard's pet than I am Howard's pet peeve. I do think he loves me deep down though. If you work hard, and sharpen your rhetoric, I'll try to find a really good epithet to describe it. I know you can do it. As for the 'own', this is nothing to get hung up on, which you do. A paramattha dhamma has a characteristic. This does not make it a little self because, due to rise and fall, it is impermenent and cannot be considered to be 'self'. I do not consider paramattha dhammas to be 'little selves' and no one here, except for the detractors of the Abhidhamma and Commentarial positions, does. That this red herring continues to be served up is beyond me. No one is disputing you - dhammas are not little selves. TG: "Nonsense. This is a key issue. You see arising entities 'dhammas' as having their 'own' characteristics. Whether the word 'own' is included or not is irrelevant. Its still the same vision." Scott: I see each paramattha dhamma to be exactly what it is and this is characteristic. These dhammas differ, the one from the other. Seeing is not hearing. Ignorance is not wisdom. A red herring, TG. Move on. More on ontology when I get more time. Sincerely, Your Own Dastardly Nemesis. #94733 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Glad to hear it. I note you pretty much disregard what the Suttas say, but if the commentaries say it, man you're right there willing to have your views altered. ;-) Well, its good to be flexible, I just don't agree with handing so much authority over to the commentaries." Scott: Happily, this allows me yet another opportunity to spin some rhetoric myself regarding the Sutta-Only school in this day-and-age. Essentially, anyone, such as yourself - and of course this is absolutely nothing personal in any way, shape, or form - who disregards a commentarial clarification in favour of his or her totally Made-Up-Based-On-Someone's-English-Translation-Of-The-Suttas position is on very thin ice. I just won't accept it. Why? Because it is totally made up! TG: "Characteristics Schmaracteristics..." Scott: Hey, now you're copying me. Find something original, why don't you! TG: "...The Buddha says -- when inspected and carefully investigated, the Five Aggregates would appear as hollow, insubstantial, void, coreless, like a mirage, etc. So if they don't appear that way to you...then according to Suttas...you must not be inspecting and carefully investigating them enough." Scott: This, of course, is total nonsense. Are you not aware that discussions here refer to concepts? You make a statement regarding how things 'appear' to me - a statement presuming to know what it is that is happening when the rubber hits the road, as it were, in my daily life. Please keep things in perspective, man - here we discuss Dhamma and use words and concepts to do so. TG: "No, these are not mere synonyms for anatta...they are ASPECTS of anatta." Scott: Yes, this appears to be the case, although I'd appreciate your clarification of what you mean by 'aspects' before I go any further. As for the rest - nice rhetoric. How was mine? Sincerely, Scott. #94734 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:25:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, I love the 'dastardly nemesis' thing! Beautiful. I am very honoured. Regarding: TG: "...Ahhh, that's what you say now. Before I started 'after it,' the 'standard line' in here was 'ultimate realities with their own characteristics.characteristics.' Now often the 'ultimate' is drop is often dropped....but believe me...they're in there. Lurking like festering cancer eating away at the innards of insight. Can I get bestowed upon me my 'bathetic' today, please please. No? Darn it, you always were 'Howard's pet.' :-(" Scott: For the above prose, I will append the epithet 'Histrionic' or, I you like, 'Melodramatic.I you like, 'Melodramatic.' It lacks and hence cannot be so labelled. .......................................... TG: This is heart wrenchingly bad news. I hope you reconsider because I want a bathos too. But you know best and one day I'll get my bathos and there'll be dancing in the streets. .................................................. I think I'm less Howard's pet than I am Howard's pet peeve. ............................................... TG: THAT was sweeeeeeeet! ....................................... I do think he loves me deep down though. .............................................. TG: We all do! ................................................ Scott: if you work hard, and sharpen your rhetoric, I'll try to find a really good epithet to describe it. I know you can do it. ................................................... TG: I am so there! .................................................... As for the 'own', this is nothing to get hung up on, which you do. A paramattha dhamma has a characteristic. This does not make it a little self because, due to rise and fall, it is impermenent and cannot be considered to be 'self'. I do not consider paramattha dhammas to be 'little selves' and no one here, except for the detractors of the Abhidhamma and Commentarial positions, does. That this red herring continues to be served up is beyond me. No one is disputing you - dhammas are not little selves. ............................................................ TG: You see ... what "unwitting" means is you are not aware of that view. I have no doubt that you don't "think" you have that view. ........................................................... TG: "Nonsense. This is a key issue. You see arising entities 'dhammas' as having their 'own' characteristics. Whether the word 'own' is included or not is irrelevant. Its still the same vision." Scott: I see each paramattha dhamma to be exactly what it is and this is characteristic. .................................................... TG: The Suttas say that by seeing them as they really are they would appear -- hollow, insubstantial, void, coreless, etc. In my view, you see them very conventionally, albeit tied up in a complicated theory of underlying dhammas. ......................................................... These dhammas differ, the one from the other. Seeing is not hearing. Ignorance is not wisdom. A red herring, TG. Move on. .......................................................... TG: The above would be readily accepted by any grade-schooler. No red herring here. The differences are there. But the differences are not "within individual things called dhammas." ......................................................... More on ontology when I get more time. Sincerely, Your Own Dastardly Nemesis. ................................................. TG: LOL #94735 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:59 pm Subject: Re: Dependent Origination is a Process truth_aerator Hi TG and all, You are right. 4NT and Dependent Origination are the core teachings of the Buddha. Dependent origination starts with "Ignorance" and ends with "aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html#dep endent The avijja is defined as not knowing (and following) the 4NT. Sounds very much like soteriological, eschatological, etiological, pragmatic and ethico-psychological teaching! The Transcendental Dependent Liberation (SN 12.23) starts with suffering & faith and ends in liberation & knowledge of destruction of taints.. Again sounds like Sounds very much like soteriological, eschatological, etiological, pragmatic and ethico-psychological teaching! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html Best wishes, Alex #94736 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:44:50 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "Glad to hear it. I note you pretty much disregard what the Suttas say, but if the commentaries say it, man you're right there willing to have your views altered. ;-) Well, its good to be flexible, I just don't agree with handing so much authority over to the commentaries.t Scott: Happily, this allows me yet another opportunity to spin some rhetoric myself regarding the Sutta-Only school in this day-and-age. Essentially, anyone, such as yourself - and of course this is absolutely nothing personal in any way, shape, or form - who disregards a commentarial clarification in favour of his or her totally Made-Up-Based-totally totally totally totally M position is on very thin ice. I just won't accept it. Why? Because it is totally made up! ....................................................... TG: Yea, like all the Sutta quotes I've been totally making up. LOL I'm sorry but have as yet seen your Pali bring forth useful insight. But keep working on it! I do not disregard commentarial clarification and that has been repeatedly said and shown by me. But such "clarification" must be in accord with what the Suttas say...or it isn't clarification, ITS something made up. My dear Scott. The Pali you are learning is also just based on "someone else's translations." It is of benefit and I urge you to study it, but it is not the be all end all. When it comes right down to it, the translations and teachings are just pointers. Whether these "pointers" have use or not is whether they help you apply those teachings to the "real world." The "truth" is not 'inside the teachings.' It is in how you process the teachings and experiences into an understanding that correctly relates to nature and can undo suffering. ................................................................... TG: "Characteristics Schmaracteristics.TG: Scott: Hey, now you're copying me. Find something original, why don't you! ....................................................... TG: I'm sorry. I am just incapable of making things up myself. :-( ................................................................... TG: "...The Buddha says -- when inspected and carefully investigated, the Five Aggregates would appear as hollow, insubstantial, void, coreless, like a mirage, etc. So if they don't appear that way to you...then according to Suttas...you must not be inspecting and carefully investigating them enough." Scott: This, of course, is total nonsense. Are you not aware that discussions here refer to concepts? You make a statement regarding how things 'appear' to me - a statement presuming to know what it is that is happening when the rubber hits the road, as it were, in my daily life. Please keep things in perspective, man - here we discuss Dhamma and use words and concepts to do so. ................................................................... TG: I don't follow this line of denial and question whether it has any applicability to the matter at hand. ..................................................................... TG: "No, these are not mere synonyms for anatta...they are ASPECTS of anatta." Scott: Yes, this appears to be the case, although I'd appreciate your clarification of what you mean by 'aspects' before I go any further. As for the rest - nice rhetoric. How was mine? .................................................................. TG: Aspects? A way in which something may be regarded. Feature. Nature. Quality. Though the Buddha talks of elements and aggregates, he does so largely to edify the mind about conditionality.... and is always leading the mind to see them in terms of conditionality. Hence these element and aggregate "identifiables," are with greater vision and insight, seen as -- hollow, empty, void, coreless, insubstantial, like a mirage, etc. Much nicer. I can almost handle it. Of course when you identify the person, and are about to say something disparaging, its too late to include "nothing personal." LOL -- Essentially, anyone, such as yourself - and of course this is absolutely nothing personal in any way, shape, or form -- TG OUT Sincerely, Scott. #94737 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Back to the hard discussion, regarding: TG: "The Suttas say that by seeing them as they really are they would appear -- hollow, insubstantial, void, coreless, etc. In my view, you see them very conventionally, albeit tied up in a complicated theory of underlying dhammas." Scott: We are exploring what it might mean that these terms are 'aspects of anatta.' If you'd please suggest what you might consider this to mean, we could explore it further. As for the seeing 'them' conventionally, you'd have to say what 'them' is (ha ha, I'm a hillbilly). I'd say you were suggesting that they are not there because you are understanding the sutta very concretely. TG: The above would be readily accepted by any grade-schooler. No red herring here. The differences are there. But the differences are not 'within individual things called dhammas.'" Scott: If it could be seen by a grade-schooler it is not Dhamma. Please suggest how the 'differences are there' and how they are distinguishable. What is 'seeing' and how would it be different from 'hearing,' for example. I'd be interested in reading how you will do this without reference to characteristic. And you are specifically and uncategorically not allowed to refer to the synonym 'quality' without really defining it well and telling me how it differs from 'characteristic.' Sincerely, Scott. #94738 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/10 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "...Just so we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs, why don't you > in the meantime account for your wholesale and uncritical acceptance > of an untestable theory :-)" > > Scott: I've puzzled over this for awhile, Herman. Here again, and I > left in the smiley face (unlike the bad connie) I can't help but > detect some sort of envy-based disparagement in the above expression. Rest assured, you are quite incorrect in detecting that. > > How can I get across to you the reasons for my 'wholesale and > uncritical acceptance' of the way I see things - the Abhidhamma, the > Commentarial exegesis? I have many. This acceptance is > non-transferrable. I can't give you what you want. I accept it > because I find no doubt arising. That's it. I can't help it and I'm > not going to manufacture doubt. To be free of doubt means that nothing is in question. To be free of doubt is to be free of possibilities. For one free of doubt things are just how they are, they must be how they are, they cannot be any other way. An ariyan, free of doubt, is guided by perfected sila. A run-of-the-mill person, free of doubt, is as much an affliction for their fellow wayfarers as to themselves. > You seem to think that the Dhamma is to be approached as if there is > such thing as objectivity. The scientific method (testing theories) > is the pursuit of eternalists. There is no such thing as objectivity. The Dhamma is made real by the absence of suffering. Unless there is freedom from suffering, it is incumbent on all of us to call everything we do into question; before, during and after. Only trial and error can lead to an understanding of conditionality and the consequent cutting off of the nutriments of suffering. On the other hand, untestable faith in a future cessation of suffering whilst fueling the fire is nothing short of delusional. Cheers Herman #94739 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:44 pm Subject: Sabbe Dhamma anatta. Nibbana NOT INCLUDED! truth_aerator Hello all, "The Blessed One said, "And which All (sabba) is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [What is the All? Simply the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas.]. "This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html & Sabba Sutta 1st) Nibbana isn't supposed to be Abandoned. 2nd) Nibbana ISN'T found in 6 inner or 6 outer bases. SN 4.28 "sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The ``all', bhikkhus, are not the Self. SN 4.21 "sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the `all'are afflictions. [Alex: How can Nibbana be affliction if it is under Sabba?!!! :) ] SN 4.19 "sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the `all'are ablaze. [Alex: How can Nibbana be ablaze if it is under Sabba?] AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma' anit.t.ha'ya `The `all' dharmas are unpleasant,not agreeable [Alex: And how can Nibbana, if it is under sabbe dhamma, be anittha?] If Sabba/e can be a noun rather then Adjective, then Sabbe Dhamma anatta can mean that noun "The All" is not-Self. The all being 6 internal sense bases + 6 external objects. Some food for thought... With best wishes, Alex #94740 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/10/2009 7:08:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "...I'll feel better and "lighter" about our discussions, Scott, if you make the attempt to avoid personal critiques. I consider them verbal attacks, and that is not endearing to me." Scott: I'm glad you were able to see where I was coming from. I'll continue to directly critique any view I wish to and will make the fact that it is the view that is under scrutiny even clearer in the future so you won't have to worry its personal. I will feel free to have my own strong views about this and that, as do all. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That sounds fine to me, Scott. -------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. =========================== With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94741 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/10/2009 6:00:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, H: These "non-nesses" (LOL!), whether simple or complex, are all not without foundation and not nothing-at-all as I see the matter, but ultimately their nature, as separate entities, is conventional. That's my perspective - neither true existents nor utter nullities, but conventional designations that fall short of being realities, with the sole exception of nibbana. c: laughing! thanks. I'm just all tongue-tied, but I'll try to stick to the word dhamma from here on... or species of that, like sound, feeling, citta, etc. Apart from nibbaana's foundation, if it has one, is that of the other dhammas just a matter of conventional agreement or is it somehow another kind of reality? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: If I said that I actually knew, I'd be the worst sort of liar! LOL! But I don't conceive of nibbana as having a foundation, for I consider there nowhere to go beyond nibbana. Nibbana *is* the foundation, as I view the matter. And as for the other dhammas, the way I think about them is that they don't constitute another kind of reality. I think there is only one reality. As it actually is, we call it nibbana. As it appears under the sway of ignorance, it is this world of "dust" or "the 10,000 things" as the Chinese call it. Seen in that deluded way, I consider it to be "the appearance realm of separate things," which is my take on samsara. The famous Chassidic master, Reb Nachman of Bratzlav, called it "the kingdom if lies." ---------------------------------------------------- I don't know if you can work with that question, maybe: what is this foundation? It's a wierdness, alright. Maybe we just have to each talk about things the best we can and in whatever terms make sense to us and just try not to step on each other's toes too much since we're all bound to be awkward. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Instead of stepping on each other's toes, we should support each other. The way is an internal matter, but externally we can help strengthen each other. ----------------------------------------------------- peace, connie ============================ With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94742 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:19 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Sarah! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, ...Are you still in Washington D.C.? Snowed up and psyched up there these days, I'm sure! > =========== It is quite exciting here, as the inauguration approaches. People are renting their houses for $30,000 and all kinds of nonsense. But it is an exciting time and an exciting event. Here in D.C. it is generally very pleasant; a tree-lined street with lots of restaurants a few blocks away, so I can't complain. If it weren't for these silly delusions of self-hood I would be quite happy. :-) As someone once said, it's hard to take a real vacation because wherever you go, you're still there! Best, Robert ========================= #94743 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 6:28:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: If it could be seen by a grade-schooler it is not Dhamma. ............................................ TG: Exactly. ...................................... Please suggest how the 'differences are there' and how they are distinguishable. What is 'seeing' and how would it be different from 'hearing,' for example. ............................................ TG: Different conditions produce different effects. Nothing contains or has anything of its own. ................................................ I'd be interested in reading how you will do this without reference to characteristic. And you are specifically and uncategorically not allowed to refer to the synonym 'quality' without really defining it well and telling me how it differs from 'characteristic.' .................................................... TG: I've already explained in detail my reasons for this today. If you missed it, please re-check today's postings between us. A pleasure as always. TG OUT #94744 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:00 pm Subject: "Such is this Continuum" ... "Here no substance can be found" TGrand458@... Hello All and translator buddy Scott The below stanza is from the 'Lump of Foam' Sutta. Can a Pali scholar type check on the word that is translated here as "continuum" and see what they come up with? Thanks in advance!!! The whole stanza reads.... "Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools, It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found." Once again, the above applies to the Five Aggregates. Obviously this stanza seems devastating to those who disagree with a "insubstantialist view." But I'm interested in the term "continuum" because I don't think it appears much in the Suttas unless it is usually translated by another term. TG OUT #94745 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/10 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > > H: "How about consciousness, or mind, or any variant of it." > > Scott: I don't forget, Herman, that you consider consciousness to be > an epiphenomenon of matter. Nor do I forget that you think that the > brain is the matter of consequence. What do you mean by offering > consciousness as an example given your avowed > materialist/epiphenomenalist stance? Do you think that understanding consciousness to be a product of form, sense base and contact will harm anyone? If so, please take it up with the being who realised DO. > Scott: How do you respond to this Commentarial position? What is your > alternative explanation? I think DO requires no defense. > H: "Yes, anicca is not a thing. And the observation of things is > ignorant grasping, the non-realisation of anicca." > > Scott: Account, then, if you would, for all the times you assert that > computers and persons are real. If you'll say that these are taken > for real due to ignorance (the mental factor, mind you) and grasped (a > function of another mental factor) then this might make sense to me. > Otherwise, you seem to say whatever suits your argument at the moment, > while seeming to contradict your overall/over-time thesis. > > H: "Impermanence is a characteristic of process. There are no things." > > Scott: What is meant when it is said, for example, 'form is > impermanent?' What is 'form' in this case? > MN28 "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness." From the above we see that form is independent of it being known. The being of form does not depend on consciousness, but consciousness does depend on the being of form. Form precedes consciousness, causally. What is impermanent is anything that is dependent on consciousness [of it]. Cheers Herman #94746 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:08 am Subject: thinking and vitakka szmicio Dear Dhamma friends Thinking arises in the mind-door processes. At the moment of javana, javana-cittas arise and experience a concept as object. But what is the function of vitakka in the process of thinking? What is the function of vitakka as jhana-factor? Best wishes Lukas #94747 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:49 am Subject: Re: "I'm in the mood. The rythm is right" Foghatt sprlrt Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Alberto, > > That first reality was nice, wasn't it. Watch out though, the joke > will shock soooooooooooooo many of your peers and hierarchical belief > structures i.e you'll light up like a x-mas tree. ... Actually my batteries are pretty low, just enough for a single stand-by led :-) take care Alberto #94748 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:03 am Subject: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34. no 10. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : How should one be aware? I know that sati is aware, but how? Should there be profound consideration or a more superficial consideration of the three general characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå? Or should there be awareness only of softness and hardness? I have understood what you taught about the practice, I listened for two or three years. However, I cannot practise. I learnt about nåma and rúpa, but what are they? How should I be aware of them? I feel confused about awareness of dhammas at the present moment. There must be a special method for this. A special method is important. Should there be profound awareness or awareness which is more superficial, awareness for a long time or for a short time? But I take everything for self. S. : This way of acting leads to confusion. You may try to regulate sati, to have profound awareness or a more superficial awareness, to have a great deal of it or only a little, but, as regards the development of paññå there is no special method or technic. The development of paññå begins with listening to the Dhamma, and studying the realities sati can be aware of, so that understanding can grow. These are conditions for the arising of sati which is directly aware of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa as they naturally appear. Since the nåma and rúpa which appear are real, paññå can come to know their true nature. You should not try to regulate sati and try to make it strong or to make it decrease so that it is weak, or to make it superficial. If one acts in that way one clings to the concept of self and does not investigate and study the characteristics of the dhammas which appear. What are the realities which appear? A person who is not forgetful of realities can be aware of them as they naturally appear, he is directly aware of their characteristics. He does not try to make sati focus on an object so that it could consider that object more deeply, over and over again. Sati arises and falls away, and then there may be again forgetfulness, or sati may be aware again of another object. Thus, we can see that satipatthåna is anattå. People who understand that all realities, including satipatthåna, are anattå, will not be confused. If someone clings to the concept of self, he is inclined to regulate and direct sati, but he does not know the right way. If one’s practice is not natural, it is complicated and creates confusion. If awareness is natural, if it studies and considers the realities which appear, there will be understanding, no confusion. ************** Nina. #94749 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Nina (and Howard) > N, message 9807 from Howard, years ago: > > Hi, Sarah (and all) - > > Yes, I also own Ven. Saddhatissa's wonderful translation of the > Sutta-Nipata, and he definitely uses 'insubstantial' instead of > 'unreal'. I > also don't have the Pali, but it seems to me that 'insubstantial' > would be a > "safer" word than 'unreal', because 'unreal' could be taken to mean > "absolutely without existence", which leans towards the nihilistic pole, > whereas 'insubstantial' tends more towards the middle-way (or emptiness) > perspective of the Dhamma. One translation that uses 'unreal' is the > translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to be found on Access to insight. > -------- > N: Norman uses unreal in vs. 9 etc. . But if we take it in the right > way there is no problem. > he translates. > ------ Thanks for the reference. I agree that it's a matter of taking it in the right way. Context is very important. That said, the question of the best translation for "dhammaa" is a tricky one. There is no "equivalent" expression in English (nor, I suspect, in any other language), and so a term must be chosen from the glosses provided by the texts. Jon #94750 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: "Such is this Continuum" ... "Here no substance can be found" christine_fo... Hello TG, Translations vary. You gave Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. Thanissaro translates it: That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer. No substance here is found. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna translates it: 21. 2. 5. 3. (95) Phenaü Ý Foam 5. This is how we continue, It's magic the foolish prattle. The Blessed One declared, It's the slayer, no essence is evident there. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- Nikaya/Samyutta3/21-Khandha-Samyutta/02-05-Pupphavaggo-e.html metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #94751 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Howard > Howard: > Exactly wrong. ;-) I have no problem with 'paramattha' or in translating > it as 'ultimate', and I certainly have no problem with the word 'dhamma'. My > "problem" is with translating 'dhammas' as 'realities', and that is for the > reason already given, namely that dhammas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta - Thanks for making clear that it is the choice of "realities" as the translation of "dhammaa" that is the issue. Are you suggesting that being a "reality" implies permanence? That is implies being "self" (Note: Not "itself")? I think of "reality" in apposition to "concept", i.e., as something that arises and falls away, and has a characteristic that can be experienced. I don't see why there is a need to impute to the term "reality" any connotation that is at odds with the characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > They are called 'paramattha', to my understanding, because they are > conventionally treated as single phenomena as opposed to collections of phenomena > (despite the tripartite division of "them" into the stages of arising, > changing while standing, and ceasing). > ------------------------------------------------------------ To my understanding, it cannot be said that dhammas are "conventionally treated" as one thing or another. That would seem to imply that persons who have not heard the teachings know about dhammas. > P. S. Even if "unreal" were dropped from the conversation, as it has a > nihilist sense in English, there is sufficient insubstantiality emphasis made by > the Buddha to go against translating 'dhammas' as 'realities'. the habit of so > translating is SO contrary to the thrust of the Dhamma! Impermanence does not necessarily connote lack of inherent characteristic. Besides, the tide of general usage is against you here ;-)). Jon #94752 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi TG > What is being suggested is that the "dhammaa" of which the Buddha > spoke at length in the suttas exhibit an identifying characteristic > capable of being the object of panna. > ............................................. > > TG: I'll agree with this as far as it goes...and it goes far enough. ;-) Well, let's leave it at that ;-)) Jon #94753 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Herman > As we know from the suttas, it is entirely possible for wrong view to > arise whilst within earshot of the Buddha. And that would be down to > unwise attention. I don't think the explanation is quite as simple as that. Wise and unwise attention are mental factors that accompany kusala and akusala consciousness respectively. They do not refer to the act of attending to something in a way that then leads to kusala or akusala consciousness. So in the example you give above, the unwise attention is one of the accompanying factors of the wrong view in question; it is not a precursor of it. > That is why I said that the critical factor is the > attention, not the voice. Wise attention of the kind that accompanies satipatthana needs the hearing of the teachings in order to arise. > I hope you get some time to enjoy Fiji (perhaps you could hide a > clause somewhere in that legislation you're drafting that military > coups will henceforth be illegal :-)) Ever the stirrer :-)) Thanks. The visit's going well so far, apart from the weather (continuous rain, severe flooding). It's great having Sarah here with me. Jon #94754 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:30 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation sprlrt Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > Dear Alberto, > I cant find Amara translation on the web, Can you point it out to me? > Any difference between Nina and Amara translations? > Amara-Varee is the translation of K. Sujin SoPD I came across first, before it was removed from dhammastudy.org, and which I downloaded and printed. I found Nina translation only later, and I now use both, two is better than one :-) The link is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DSList/ Alberto #94755 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 1/11/2009 1:43:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Scott In a message dated 1/10/2009 6:28:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: If it could be seen by a grade-schooler it is not Dhamma. ............................................ TG: Exactly. ...................................... Please suggest how the 'differences are there' and how they are distinguishable. What is 'seeing' and how would it be different from 'hearing,' for example. ............................................ TG: Different conditions produce different effects. Nothing contains or has anything of its own. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: True, I believe, but also a matter subtle and easily misunderstood. The experience of "this instant" remains as is for no time at all and is entirely dependent on past and current conditions, thus being inseparable from them and hence nothing in and of itself. And yet it is entirely fresh and new, and is what it is uniquely, differing from all other other experience, including all else that falls into the same conventional category. So, there is emptiness, but there is also freshness and characteristic, as I see it. Some will say that what I express here is an attempt to eat my cake and have it too, but I believe that this is the way it is. -------------------------------------------------- ============================ With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) #94756 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:01 am Subject: A "Christmas Carol" Dream: Hallucination, Mild Insanity, or Insight - Who Knows! upasaka_howard Hi, all - For those who have disdain for or even just no interest in what someone dreams, please read no further. Last night, actually early this morning, I had a dream that was the oddest and most emotional of any I've ever had, and I learned from it. The start of the dream involved my having been driving in a beautiful and extremely large park that, as I think about it, was a compound of a lovely park near my home and a huge and lovely park in Philadelphia where I was raised. It seems that I had taken a wrong turn, off the main road onto a side road through the park. It was still lovely, but "not right," and I wanted to get back. The dream scene then shifted: I was in a large auditorium, perhaps at a university or research foundation, and an imposing lecturer was demonstrating something very new. (BTW, the scene was quite vivid, both in color and "presence.") The other attendees and I were each holding a newspaper or very large book, and the first 15 or so pages each had beautiful, bright paintings/photographs on them. I turned the pages back and forth, ooh-ing and ahh-ing at them. The lecturer then stated that this was a "scientific breakthrough" and that there really were no pages at all, but just the appearance of pages. Then, suddenly, things got really strange: Physically everything seemed to spin, and the lecturer said that we were all shifting to a different world entirely. At that point we exited the lecture hall into a large parking lot. Nothing was familiar. The cars were parked double-layered, each car with another sitting on top of it. Someone handed me what was supposedly the contents of my pockets. I looked the materials over, and I saw a mix of items, some new, some from the distant past, but nothing of my current life, and, in particular, no cell phone to contact my wife or sons or friends, and everything was "as wrong as can be". An enormous sadness welled up, I began sobbing, and I prayed that I could return to the present. I then woke up, crying aloud in a way I never do. I got up and put on clothes to go outside to bring in the Sunday papers. During the night there had been a mix of snow and sleet, layering the grass with a crunchy cover. As I walked across the lawn, the ice and snow crunching beneath my feet, I vividly felt and loved every sensation of touch, sight, and sound, knowing with a certainty that however things are, "This is how it is supposed to be," and I couldn't help but smile from ear to ear with thankfulness with tears of joy for the "rightness" of things just as they are right now. And I thought of Ebenezer Scrooge on Christmas morning in the film "A Christmas Carol," and of George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life" after he was shown alternative realities and then returned to the present. With metta, Howard (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) #94757 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Such is this Continuum" ... "Here no substance can be found" upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Scott) - In a message dated 1/11/2009 2:01:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hello All and translator buddy Scott The below stanza is from the 'Lump of Foam' Sutta. Can a Pali scholar type check on the word that is translated here as "continuum" and see what they come up with? Thanks in advance!!! The whole stanza reads.... "Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools, It is taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found." Once again, the above applies to the Five Aggregates. Obviously this stanza seems devastating to those who disagree with a "insubstantialist view." But I'm interested in the term "continuum" because I don't think it appears much in the Suttas unless it is usually translated by another term. TG OUT ================================== An interesting translation.Ven T translates the sutta quite differently, talking in this context about the body, with the relevant part being as follows: Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.No substance here is found. Who did the translation you provided, TG? With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #94758 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:18 am Subject: Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear Herman, "Do you think that understanding consciousness to be a product of form, sense base and contact will harm anyone?.." Scott: Contact (phassa) is naama - a mental factor and hence 'consciousness.' Do you think that phassa is 'physical' - that is, form? I think that misunderstanding the difference between naama and ruupa, and hence the conditions for consciousness, won't get anyone anywhere (if that is harmful...) Can you please clarify your position. You are claiming that form is a forerunner, not consciousness, while suggesting that consciousness (phassa, in this case) is integral to the experience of form (which it is, of course - consciousness *is* the experience of form). H: MN 28 "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness." Scott: Here's a second translation (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi): "If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into range, and there is no corresponding [conscious] engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding class of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding [conscious] engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding class of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is corresponding [conscious] engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding class of consciousness." Ajjhattika~nceva, aavuso, cakkhu.m aparibhinna.m hoti, baahiraa ca ruupaa na aapaatha.m aagacchanti, no ca tajjo samannaahaaro hoti, neva taava tajjassa vi~n~naa.nabhaagassa paatubhaavo hoti. Ajjhattika~nceva, aavuso, cakkhu.m aparibhinna.m hoti baahiraa ca ruupaa aapaatha.m aagacchanti, no ca tajjo samannaahaaro hoti, neva taava tajjassa vi~n~naa.nabhaagassa paatubhaavo hoti. Yato ca kho, aavuso, ajjhattika~nceva cakkhu.m aparibhinna.m hoti, baahiraa ca ruupaa aapaatha.m aagacchanti, tajjo ca samannaahaaro hoti. Eva.m tajjassa vi~n~naa.nabhaagassa paatubhaavo hoti. H: "From the above we see that form is independent of it being known. The being of form does not depend on consciousness, but consciousness does depend on the being of form. Form precedes consciousness, causally. What is impermanent is anything that is dependent on consciousness [of it]." Scott: Yes, 'form is independent of its being known' - if by that you mean that it exists independent of becoming an object of consciousness. Form is also subject to rise and fall - hence impermanent. Do you agree? Sincerely, Scott. #94759 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:34 am Subject: Re: A "Christmas Carol" Dream: Hallucination, Mild Insanity, or Insight - Who Knows! scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "...Last night, actually early this morning, I had a dream that was the oddest and most emotional of any I've ever had, and I learned from it..." Scott: Dreaming is thinking in the night. Although different from the thinking during the day, it is, nevertheless, still just thinking. How is what you 'learned' from this dream useful? How does this experience contribute to detachment? I'd be wary of suggesting that the essentially emotional experience conditioned by these thoughts necessarily indicates any 'insight' - as insight is given from a Dhamma perspective. Please do not reply if you are feeling upset by this post. My questions are fairly directed at dreams as objects of consciousness, and at dreams as thinking, at the utility of clinging to the product of thought, and at the meaning of insight. Sincerely, Scott. #94760 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:47 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "17. For one person may be controlled in his bodily behaviour with his control in doing an extensive course of duty known to all, though his verbal and mental are not controlled. Then the latter should be ignored and the control in his bodily behaviour remembered." The Path of Purity. "Verily a certain man in behaviour is calm. His calmness is noticed by everyone, as he discharges many of his duties, large and small. But he is not calm in his behaviour in speech and thought. These being disregarded, the calmness of his bodily behaviour only should be recollected." Ekaccassa hi kaayasamaacaarova upasanto hoti. Upasantabhaavo cassa bahu.m vattapa.tipatti.m karontassa sabbajanena ~naayati. Vaciisamaacaaramanosamaacaaraa pana avuupasantaa honti. Tassa te acintetvaa kaayasamaacaaravuupasamoyeva anussaritabbo. Sincerely, Scott. #94761 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:04 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, (Suan, should you wish to continue), Regarding the context: Visuddhimagga XXI [7. Knowledge of Reflexion] "47. Being thus desirous of deliverance from all the manifold formations in any kind of becoming, generation, destiny, station, or abode, in order to be delivered from the whole field of formations he again discerns these same formations, attributing to them the three characteristics by knowledge of contemplation of reflexion. So eva.m sabbabhavayonigati.t.thitinivaasagatehi sabhedakehi sa"nkhaarehi muccitukaamo sabbasmaa sa"nkhaaragataa muccitu.m puna te eva.m sa"nkhaare pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena tilakkha.na.m aaropetvaa parigga.nhaati. Scott: 'Reflexion' is 'pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena.' PTS PED: "Pa.tisankhaati [pa.ti+sa.m+khyaa] to be careful, to think over, reflect, discriminate, consider; only in ger. pa.tisankhaa (as adv.) carefully, intently, with discrimination.." "Anupassanaa (f.) [abstr. of anupassati...] looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation..." "~Naa.na (nt.) [from jaanaati. See also jaanana...knowledge, intelligence, insight, conviction, recognition, opp. a~naa.na & avijjaa, lack of k. or ignorance..." Scott: It is clear that we are dealing with the function of pa~n~naa in this case. Sincerely, Scott. #94762 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 10-jan-2009, om 18:37 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > N: They alternate rapidly and it is not so easy to know > > when the citta is kusala and when akusala. > > L: Yeah. It's really hard to know. It often reminds me that only panna > can know it, what is kusala or not. And it's conditioned. > Is there any diffrence beetwen panna which knows kusala and akusala > (knows the conditions for more kusala) and panna which knows nama as > nama and rupa as rupa? ------ N: Pa~n~naa in samatha knows kusala as kusala, akusala as akusala. It does not know them as non-self, but it knows how to supress the hindrances and develop calm, which is being removed from the hindrances. Before listening to the Buddha's teaching people did not know kusala and akusala as non-self. BUt through the dhamma we learn that they are only condiitoned dhammas, non-self. They are nama different from rupa. -------- > L: What if mind goes somewhere? It thinks all the time, it has its own > paths. ------ N: The citta is traveling all the time to different objects. -------- > L: It is involed in its own stories. with dosa, which is painful > and with mana which leads to pain later on. -------- N: Before listening to the Dhamma dosa was ours, but now we learn that it is a conditioned dhamma. It has a characteristic and it can be known when it appears. We need not be disturbed by akusala. If we are disturbed by it we accumulate even more aversion. Generally people like to get rid of dosa but they forget that dosa is conditioned by lobha. When we do not get what we want or things are not the way we would like them to be dosa is likely to arise. I heard this morning about dosa: I also read this to Lodewijk when bringing him his morning tea to wake him up. Kh Sujin repeats a lot, but I find this useful. Otherwise it does not sink in. We cannot be reminded enough, so much negligence. I am bound to forget what I heard on the recoording and it is gone with the wind. Therefore I make notes. Firm remembrance of what one heard is one of the proximate causes of satipatthaana. But what we understand we shall not forget so easily. Your other post: ------- L: Thinking arises in the mind-door processes. At the moment of javana, javana-cittas arise and experience a concept as object. But what is the function of vitakka in the process of thinking? ------- N: When using the word thinking we have to be clear whether we use it in a more general sense or whether we mean vitakka cetasika. This cetasika arises also in sensedoor processes. it arises with all cittas of the sense sphere except with the sense-cognitions of seeing, hearing etc. It touches or hits the object, assists citta in that way so that it can know the object. ------ L:What is the function of vitakka as jhana-factor? -------- N: It hits the meditation subject of samatha. When one is more skilled it can be abandoned, one does not need it anymore as calm grows and higher stages of jhaana are attained. As a factor of the eightfold Path it is right thinking and assists the right understanding of the eightfold path to know nama and rupa as they are. -------- Nina. #94763 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Howard > Howard: > Exactly wrong. ;-) I have no problem with 'paramattha' or in translating > it as 'ultimate', and I certainly have no problem with the word 'dhamma'. My > "problem" is with translating 'dhammas' as 'realities', and that is for the > reason already given, namely that dhammas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta - Thanks for making clear that it is the choice of "realities" as the translation of "dhammaa" that is the issue. Are you suggesting that being a "reality" implies permanence? That is implies being "self" (Note: Not "itself")? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Not permanence, but separate, self-existence. It is the connotation that is bothersome. (Equally bothersome to me would be 'unreality', though there are times that the Buddha does say "unreal".) As for 'reality', look at 2 (b) in the following dictionary definition: Main Entry: re·al·i·ty Function: noun Pronunciation: re-'a-l&-te Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : the quality or state of being real 2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily --------------------------------------------- I think of "reality" in apposition to "concept", i.e., as something that arises and falls away, and has a characteristic that can be experienced. I don't see why there is a need to impute to the term "reality" any connotation that is at odds with the characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I've explained why I don't like it. For me, the connotation is suggestive of unilateral existence as an entity, and I consider that to be opposite of the thrust of the Buddha. But, of course, we each speak and write as we choose. ----------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > They are called 'paramattha', to my understanding, because they are > conventionally treated as single phenomena as opposed to collections of phenomena > (despite the tripartite division of "them" into the stages of arising, > changing while standing, and ceasing). > ------------------------------------------------------------ To my understanding, it cannot be said that dhammas are "conventionally treated" as one thing or another. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know. :-) --------------------------------------------------- That would seem to imply that persons who have not heard the teachings know about dhammas. > P. S. Even if "unreal" were dropped from the conversation, as it has a > nihilist sense in English, there is sufficient insubstantiality emphasis made by > the Buddha to go against translating 'dhammas' as 'realities'. the habit of so > translating is SO contrary to the thrust of the Dhamma! Impermanence does not necessarily connote lack of inherent characteristic. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: The usage of 'inherent' bothers me, given that the very existence of conditioned phenomena is a borrowed one. ---------------------------------------------- Besides, the tide of general usage is against you here ;-)). --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Thank you for supporting my position! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- Jon ======================== With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94764 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A "Christmas Carol" Dream: Hallucination, Mild Insanity, or Ins... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/11/2009 10:34:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "...Last night, actually early this morning, I had a dream that was the oddest and most emotional of any I've ever had, and I learned from it..." Scott: Dreaming is thinking in the night. Although different from the thinking during the day, it is, nevertheless, still just thinking. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what element of insight actually entered in. And for sure no one knows with any certainty with regard to the experience of another. -------------------------------------------- How is what you 'learned' from this dream useful? How does this experience contribute to detachment? --------------------------------------------- Howard: It leads me to a greater appreciation of what is actual and present, the worthwhile-ness of being satisfied with things as they are, and the "rightness," whether pleasant, or unpleasant, or neutral, of what actually is in this very moment. ----------------------------------------------- I'd be wary of suggesting that the essentially emotional experience conditioned by these thoughts necessarily indicates any 'insight' - as insight is given from a Dhamma perspective. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm always wary. I trust nothing until I *know*, and real knowing is way off, it seems. ----------------------------------------------- Please do not reply if you are feeling upset by this post. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you. :-) I'm not upset at all by it. It's good. ------------------------------------------------- My questions are fairly directed at dreams as objects of consciousness, and at dreams as thinking, at the utility of clinging to the product of thought, and at the meaning of insight. Sincerely, Scott. ======================= With metta, Howard (From the Diamond Sutra) #94765 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:27 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, Karundasa continues with the other 3 postulates: (iii) Nothing arises from a single cause. This rules out theories of a single cause (ekakaranavada).103 Their rejection is of great significance, showing that the Abhidhammic view of existence rejects all monistic theories which seek to explain the origin of the world from a single cause, whether this single cause is conceived as a personal God or an impersonal Godhead. It also serves as a critique of those metaphysical theories which attempt to reduce the world of experience to an underlying transempirical principle. (iv) Nothing arises singly, as a solitary phenomenon.104 Thus on the basis of a single cause or on the basis of a plurality of causes, a single effect does not arise. The invariable situation is that there is always a plurality of effects. It is on the rejection of the four views referred to above that the Abhidhammic doctrine of conditionality is founded. (v) From a plurality of conditions a plurality of effects takes place. Applied to the dhamma theory, this means that a multiplicity of dhammas brings about a multiplicity of other dhammas.105 notes: 103. DhsA 78. 104. (ibid. 79). 105. Ibid. 78ff. ...to be continued. Really, I'm trying to keep these extracts short! connie #94766 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:28 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, Nyanaponika continues: When bhuuta is explained as bhavitvaa, "having been", this second category of "things arisen" refers to everything conditioned (sa'nkhata) which, after having passed through the three phases of its existence in the present, "has gone'> If this last expression had been given alone, we should be inclined to think that bhuutaapagat'uppanna referred merely to the use of the word as a past tense. But against this supposition there is firstly the rather involved term bhuutaapagata, which would have been unnecessary to express such a simple matter; secondly and particularly, by the emphasis on the evaluating function of kammic consciousness, the firt part of the compound (in the sense of "having experienced") receives a greter stress than the second part expressing the fact of "having gone." We therefore suggest that this second category of uppanna is intended to express the share of past mental states in present ones, particularly that of the active, that is, kammic mental states. ...to be continued, connie #94767 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:34 am Subject: Re: nama rupa in daily life, continuation szmicio Thanks Nina Recently I doubt whether the way I live is a proper way. But there are also moments when all is clear. Then I really appreciate the way Ajahn Sujin , you and other friends here explain Dhamma. Generally the consideration of akusala dhammas as they arise in daily life is very helpful and beneficial for me. > N: Otherwise it does not sink in. We cannot be reminded enough, so much > negligence. I am bound to forget what I heard on the recoording and > it is gone with the wind. > Therefore I make notes. Firm remembrance of > what one heard is one of the proximate causes of satipatthaana. But > what we understand we shall not forget so easily. L: Is pariyatti just firm remembrance of what we've learned or it's firm remembrance with wise consideration? Remembering nama and rupa and applying it in daily life is more pariyatti or more patipati? Best wishes. Lukas #94768 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Such is this Continuum" ... "Here no substance can be found" TGrand458@... Hi Chris Thank you very much for these varieties of translations. They all seem to be essentially stating the same thing. "The way it goes" -- "how we continue" -- "such is this continuum" ... seem all in line describing "continuation of a process." Two translators agreeing on -- "no substance" and the other putting forth "no essence" ... also seem in tight agreement as well. TG OUT In a message dated 1/11/2009 2:37:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: Hello TG, Translations vary. You gave Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. Thanissaro translates it: That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer. No substance here is found. _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html) Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna translates it: 21. 2. 5. 3. (95) Phenaü Ý Foam 5. This is how we continue, It's magic the foolish prattle. The Blessed One declared, It's the slayer, no essence is evident there. _http://www.mettanethttp://www.methttp://www.methttp://www_ (http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-) Nikaya/Samyutta3/Nikaya/SamyNikaya/SaNikaya/Samyutta3Nikaya/S #94769 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - =============================== Karunadasa writes "Nothing arises from a single cause. This rules out theories of a single cause (ekakaranavada).103 Their rejection is of great significance, showing that the Abhidhammic view of existence rejects all monistic theories which seek to explain the origin of the world from a single cause, whether this single cause is conceived as a personal God or an impersonal Godhead. It also serves as a critique of those metaphysical theories which attempt to reduce the world of experience to an underlying transempirical principle." This is an overstatement, IMO, (only) as regards the logic involved, for the multiple condition/multiple effect principle is with regard to relations among conditioned dhammas. With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94770 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:00 am Subject: Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc nichiconn Hi Howard, Howard: If I said that I actually knew, I'd be the worst sort of liar! LOL! But I don't conceive of nibbana as having a foundation, for I consider there nowhere to go beyond nibbana. Nibbana *is* the foundation, as I view the matter. And as for the other dhammas, the way I think about them is that they don't constitute another kind of reality. I think there is only one reality. As it actually is, we call it nibbana. As it appears under the sway of ignorance, it is this world of "dust" or "the 10,000 things" as the Chinese call it. Seen in that deluded way, I consider it to be "the appearance realm of separate things," which is my take on samsara. The famous Chassidic master, Reb Nachman of Bratzlav, called it "the kingdom if lies." c: That sure makes it clear why you'd not want to say dhamma = reality! I'm not clear on how ignorance or craving wouldn't be 'foundations' in their own right, but I'm happy to leave it. ...after all, no beginning point of those need be known. peace, connie #94771 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 1/11/2009 7:17:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: True, I believe, but also a matter subtle and easily misunderstood. The experience of "this instant" remains as is for no time at all and is entirely dependent on past and current conditions, thus being inseparable from them and hence nothing in and of itself. And yet it is entirely fresh and new, and is what it is uniquely, differing from all other other experience, including all else that falls into the same conventional category. So, there is emptiness, but there is also freshness and characteristic, as I see it. Some will say that what I express here is an attempt to eat my cake and have it too, but I believe that this is the way it is. ....................................................................... TG: Would you like a medium or large piece? ;-) Conditions are dynamically interacting and ever emerging as "new" formations. Maybe that's what you mean by "freshness"? The term "characteristic" here plays into the hands of the "substantialist crowd." Personally I would replace it with something more like "diverse formationings" which leaves less to attach to IMO. I really like this part -- and is entirely dependent on past and current conditions, thus being inseparable from them and hence nothing in and of itself. TG OUT #94772 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Such is this Continuum" ... "Here no substance can be found" TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 1/11/2009 8:09:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.No substance here is found. Who did the translation you provided, TG? .............................................. TG: BB I actually think they are in good agreement. The last sentence being almost word for word identical. And "That's the way it goes" vs "Such is this continuum" I think being pretty much identical in meaning. Thanks for the feedback! TG OUT #94773 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...Personally I would replace it with something more like 'diverse formationings' which leaves less to attach to IMO..." Scott: Unbelievable. Sincerely, Scott. #94774 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand458@... Hi Scott and Herman I'm jumping in with a short comment... In a message dated 1/11/2009 8:19:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Herman, "Do you think that understanding consciousness to be a product of form, sense base and contact will harm anyone?.." Scott: Contact (phassa) is naama - a mental factor and hence 'consciousness.'consciousness.' Do you think that phassa is ' form? I think that misunderstanding the difference between naama and ruupa, and hence the conditions for consciousness, won't get anyone anywhere (if that is harmful...) .......................................................... TG: I think its very plain to see that contact, as used by the Buddha to indicate how consciousness arises, requires both a physical and mental contact. Also, regarding the 5 sense bases, and possibly the sixth, it will require physical contact to slightly precede the mental contact (phassa) where all three come together for mutually supporting consciousness. This is just simple common sense IMO. In this important Sutta passage, the Buddha is teaching the "mechanics" of how consciousness arises. Contact (phassa) indicates those "mechanics" and is not a synonym for or equivalency of 'consciousness,' but an explanation of the 'foundational principles' and 'conditional mechanics' required for consciousness. To identify "phassa" as a nama or rupa seems to be missing the point to me. TG OUT H: MN 28 "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.c #94775 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Jon and Howard In a message dated 1/11/2009 9:27:25 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Jon: Impermanence does not necessarily connote lack of inherent characteristic. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: The usage of 'inherent' bothers me, given that the very existence of conditioned phenomena is a borrowed one. .............................................. TG: Regarding Jon's comment above. Actually, impermanence DOES necessarily connote a lack of inherent characteristics. Because impermanence and conditionality are two aspects of the same process. And what is conditioned, dependently originated, is by necessity "borrowed" and empty of anything "of its own." There are no inherent characteristics. TG OUT #94776 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/11/2009 11:15:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "...Personally I would replace it with something more like 'diverse formationings' which leaves less to attach to IMO..." Scott: Unbelievable. .................................................... TG: I take it this is meant in the highest complimentary sense? Thanks. I thought it was pretty good too. Oh hey, how about a Sutta quote for good measure. I'm sure you'll find it "unbelievably good" too... “Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference of feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of perception there is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is difference of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; owing to difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.†(Ven. Sariputta . . . LDB, pg. 520, Expanding Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) Gee Wiz....you know what...this sort of sounds like "diverse formationings." TG OUT #94777 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I think its very plain to see that contact, as used by the Buddha to indicate how consciousness arises, requires both a physical and mental contact..." Scott: Contact (phassa) refers to a mental 'touching' only. The rest is armchair psychology of perception - you know, axons, neurons, synapses, nerves and stuff. Not Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #94778 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie, very good, I noticed this at once. Now I can read it, otherwise overwhelmed by the mass of posts. Nina Op 11-jan-2009, om 18:27 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Really, I'm trying to keep these extracts short! #94779 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding, TG: "I take it this is meant in the highest complimentary sense?..." Scott: Not in any way. I find this proliferation of new terminology to be absolutely pointless. The new term 'diverse formationings' is extraneous and clumsy. I find no use in a project that seeks to re-label the Dhamma. Extant terms are difficult enough to comprehend. Here's a full quote, just to keep things in context . Dasuttarasutta.m: "Which nine things are hard to penetrate? Nine differences (naanattaa): Owing to difference of element (dhaatu) there is difference of contact (phassa); owing to difference contact there is difference of feeling (vedanaa); owing to difference of feeling there is difference of perception (sa~n~naa); owing to difference of perception there is difference of thought (sa"nkappa); owing to difference of thought there is difference of intention (chanda); owing to difference of intention there is difference of obsession (pari.laahaa); owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest (pariyesanaa); owing to difference of quest there is difference of what is gained (laabha)." katame nava dhammaa duppa.tivijjhaa? Nava naanattaa â€" dhaatunaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati phassanaanatta.m, phassanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati vedanaanaanatta.m, vedanaanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati sa~n~naanaanatta.m, sa~n~naanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati sa"nkappanaanatta.m, sa"nkappanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati chandanaanatta.m, chandanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati pari.laahanaanatta.m, pari.laahanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati pariyesanaanaanatta.m, pariyesanaanaanatta.m pa.ticca uppajjati laabhanaanatta.m. Ime nava dhammaa duppa.tivijjhaa. PTS PED: "Naanatta (nt. m.)...diversity, variety, manifoldness, multiformity, distraction; all sorts of..." Scott: There's all ready a word. Does the term 'diverse formationings' contribute to a clarity of intellectual comprehension? The use of the term 'formationings' - so awkward - is made to grind an axe. Sincerely, Scott. #94780 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/11/2009 12:13:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Contact (phassa) refers to a mental 'touching' only. The rest is armchair psychology of perception - you know, axons, neurons, synapses, nerves and stuff. Not Dhamma. .......................................... Unbelievable. Contact (PHASSA) is the coming together, the meeting of sense-object, sense-base, and corresponding mentation/consciousness. How you radically conclude that this is "mental touching only" is beyond bizarre. I know, a commentary said so Maybe its time to do just a little bit of thinking on your own. :-/ To try to identify "contact" as either a nama or rupa is to try to 'make an entity' out of what is a mere description of 'process.' Since certain commentarial outlooks are stuck with "entity view," they are lost unless they entify everything. Pathetic. TG OUT #94781 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:01 pm Subject: asl question nichiconn dear bookworms, does this sound odd to you, too? my? Asl 269: << Again, when another person attending on occasion of sense agitates my subconscious life-continuum, processes of cognition arise, apperception takes place. >> That's the 1st sentence, last paragraph, Expositor, p.357, 1999 edition. thanks, connie #94782 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] asl question TGrand458@... Hi Connie TG Certainly is written here oddly and awkwardly. It would seem to be about sense-objects agitating bhavanga consciousness causing conscious awareness of the contact to arise...and mindfully knowing such, it would appear. Is that close to your understanding of what it means? TG OUT #94783 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 pm Subject: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 5 robmoult Hi All, From my paper: ===== The Suttas make it clear that we cannot necessarily trust our senses, but "out of body experiences" are also described in the Suttas. Out of body experiences are described in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) and elsewhere as a by-product of the highest level of jhāna: "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds." Mahāmoggallāna is famous as being foremost in these types of psychic powers, though many other monks were reported to have these types of powers as well. The difference between the psychic powers exhibited by Mahāmoggallāna and the out of body experiences appears to be the level of control the mind has over the experience. Mahāmoggallāna appears to be able to control this psychic ability with his concentrated mind, whereas those with out of body experiences seem to play more of a spectator or observer role. Perhaps the biological condition of the person having an out of body experience creates a "pseudo-psychic power", but because the mind is not concentrated enough, this "pseudo-psychic power" cannot be controlled by the mind. ===== Please note that I am not saying that out of body experiences are the same as jhanas. What I am saying is that the suttas allow for the possibility of "flying through the air like a winged bird". The Samaññaphala Sutta also describes a mind-made body (but does so to stress that this mind-made body is not self). ===== "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. ===== Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) #94784 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:38 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > PS BTW, eternalist view, sassata ditthi, refers to the self, not to > dhammas. Which means it is especially important not to give dhammas the status of a substitute self, but assigning them a version of transcendent existent. That is exactly the sort of view that leads to attaching a sense of entity to things in the first place. If I am in love with my Persian rug, and I get a wine stain on it, I react with just as much grief as if I had perhaps lost a finger. "Things" become "part of my self" as far as my self-concept is concerned. I would think that we would not want to assign a similar place of attachment to "dhammas," in whatever guise it may appear. When you say that something is "paramatha," it seems to me that there is a danger of heading in that direction, and that on a number of occasions folks have regarded the paramatha dhammas with a kind of reverent absoluteness that I think should only be reserved, if at all, for nibbana itself. Best, Robert ===================== #94785 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:10 pm Subject: re: asl question nichiconn Hi TG, Asl 269: << Again, when another person attending on occasion of sense agitates my subconscious life-continuum, processes of cognition arise, apperception takes place. >> TG: Certainly is written here oddly and awkwardly. It would seem to be about sense-objects agitating bhavanga consciousness causing conscious awareness of the contact to arise...and mindfully knowing such, it would appear. Is that close to your understanding of what it means? c: Yes, but. It's giving (another) example of a case where the sense-door process, due to the weakness of the object, doesn't quite get as far as registration... so the mindfully knowing part, as we usually think of that, doesn't really apply. I just think there's a missing phrase or something & wonder if other editions say the same thing & it's just me it's not making sense to. Thanks, though. peace, connie #94786 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:52 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. truth_aerator Robert you are right, By creating "ultimate categories" not only one is engaging in papanca, but craving as well. The reason the self is denied is also because there is no "ultimate category" that is ultimate, all in itself, nicca and so on. With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Alberto! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > > PS BTW, eternalist view, sassata ditthi, refers to the self, not to > > dhammas. > > Which means it is especially important not to give dhammas the status > of a substitute self, but assigning them a version of transcendent > existent. That is exactly the sort of view that leads to attaching a > sense of entity to things in the first place. > > If I am in love with my Persian rug, and I get a wine stain on it, I > react with just as much grief as if I had perhaps lost a finger. > "Things" become "part of my self" as far as my self-concept is > concerned. I would think that we would not want to assign a similar > place of attachment to "dhammas," in whatever guise it may appear. > > When you say that something is "paramatha," it seems to me that there > is a danger of heading in that direction, and that on a number of > occasions folks have regarded the paramatha dhammas with a kind of > reverent absoluteness that I think should only be reserved, if at all, > for nibbana itself. > > Best, > Robert > > ===================== > #94787 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Void, Coreless, Insubstantial, etc egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/12 Scott : > Dear TG, > > Regarding: > > TG: "I think its very plain to see that contact, as used by the > Buddha to indicate how consciousness arises, requires both a physical > and mental contact..." > > Scott: Contact (phassa) refers to a mental 'touching' only. The rest > is armchair psychology of perception - you know, axons, neurons, > synapses, nerves and stuff. Not Dhamma. > Please let me know whether the following is Dhamma: quoting from post #69718 We can compare this with the "Atthasåliní" (II, Book II, Ch III, 306) the eye as "compound organ", described as follows: ... a lump of flesh is situated in the cavity of the eye, bound by the bone of the cavity of the eye below, by the bone of the brow above, by the eye-peaks on both sides, by the brain inside, by the eyelashes outside.... Although the world perceives the eye as white, as (of a certain) bigness, extension, width, they do not know the real sentient eye, but only the physical basis thereof. That lump of flesh situated in the cavity of the eye is bound to the brain by sinewy threads. Therein are white, black, red, extension, cohesion, heat and mobility. The eye is white from the abundance of phlegm, black from that of bile, red from that of blood, rigid from the element of extension, fluid from that of cohesion, hot from that of heat, and oscillating from that of mobility. Such is the compound organ of the eye....> in combination with As to the "sentient eye" or eyesense, this is to be found, according to the "Atthasåliní", in the middle of the black circle, surrounded by white circles, and it permeates the ocular membranes "as sprinkled oil permeates seven cotton wicks." Cheers Herman #94788 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:24 pm Subject: re: asl question nichiconn Hi again, TG, Actually, I should say I have next to no grip on the whole sense and mind door process(es) theory and while I think bits and pieces make sense the more I read, I'm certainly up to reading other explanations... just not arguing or taking my own provisional agreement/disagreement to be worth much. peace, connie #94789 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Scott, Herman & all, --- On Thu, 8/1/09, connie wrote: >http://sacred- texts.com/ bud/sbe35/ sbe3507.htm 15. The king said: 'When those conditions (whose marks you have just specified) have run together, is it possible, by bending them apart one to one side and one to the other, to make the distinction between them clear, so that one can say:,' This is contact, and this sensation, and this idea, and this intention, and this perception, and this reflection, and this investigation" ?' 'No: that cannot be done.' 'Give me an illustration. ' 'Suppose, O king, the cook in the royal household were to make a syrup or a sauce, and were to put into it curds, and salt, and ginger, and cummin seed, and pepper, and other ingredients. And suppose the king were to say to him: "Pick out for me the flavour of the curds, and of the salt, and of the ginger, and of the cummin seed, and of the pepper, and of all the things you have put into it." Now would it be possible, great king, separating off one from another those flavours that had thus run together, to pick out each one, so that one could say: "Here is the sourness, and here the saltness, and here the pungency, and here the acidity, and here the astringency, and here the sweetness"?' 'No, that would not be possible. **But each flavour would nevertheless be distinctly present by its characteristic sign.**' 'And just so, great king, with respect to those conditions we were discussing.' 'Very good, Naagasena!' .... S: Not possible to distinguish or know by ignorance, but for developed panna, the distinct characteristics can be known, just as the soup ingredients can be detected by Howard's aunt! Metta, Sarah ========= #94790 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Connie & all, --- On Thu, 8/1/09, connie wrote: >Karunadasa continues: The best illustration for the relative position of the material elements is given in the Visuddhimagga where it is said: "And just as whomsoever the great creatures such as the spirits grasp hold of (possess), they have no standing place either inside him or outside him and yet they have no standing independently of him, so too these elements are not found to stand either inside or outside each other, yet they have no standing independently of one another." 93 .... S: In other words, the rupas arise together in kalapas and cannot arise independently of other rupas. .... >This explanation is justified on the following grounds: If they were to exist inside each other, then they would not perform their respective functions. If they were to exist outside each other, then they would be resolvable.94 The principle of positional inseparability is also resorted to as a critique of the distinction between substance and quality. .... S: ??? ... >Hence it is contended that in the case of material elements which are positionally inseparable it is not possible to say: "This is the quality of that one and that is the quality of this one." 95 93. Vsm 387. 94. VsmM 364; see also Abhvk 248. 95. Vsm 444-45. , ..... S: Can you give me the Vism quote with a little context for this? When a rupa appears, its 'quality' or characteristic can be known by developed panna. To moha, nothing can be known and no qualities or characteristics distinguished. Metta, Sarah ====== #94791 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, --- On Tue, 6/1/09, sprlrt wrote: >A: Here are some quotes that might help a bit, beginning from the last parapraph of MN1 sutta (Nanamoli-Bodhi transl.): 194. ... "That is what the Blessed one said. But those bhikkhus did not [! ! !] delight in the Blessed One's word." BB note: "MA explains that the Buddha delivered this sutta to dispel the conceit that had arisen in 500 bhikkhus on account of their erudition and intellectual mastery of the Buddha's teachings." (The Ordinary Person) 3. Here bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person [putujjana puggala], who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma.... perceives [sanna, i.e. remembers] earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth... .... S: I don't have any texts with me (except for CMA), but are you sure it isn't 'ma~n~nanaa', rather than 'sa~n~naa' that is used in the above? As I understand the term, this is similar to papa~nca - referring to delusional thinking with lobha, maana or di.t.thi. Ok, here's an earlier post I wrote relating to this (quoting from the excellent BPS, Bodhi translation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta and commentaries): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/60603 S: >First of all, BB discusses the word 'ma~n~nanaa' in some detail in his introduction which helps the reading of the sutta. "But what is indicated by this word is not simple discursive thinking...the word ma~n~nanaa signifies a different, more developed type of thinking, one that is decidedly unwholesome and always involves a wrong grasp of the object. Mannana is distortional thinking.......<...> The activity of conceiving, the commentary points out, is motivated by three underlying mental factors......craving (ta.nhaa), conceit (maana), and views (di.t.thi)." S: Lots more detail is given. Here the 'views' refer to wrong views. With regard to the lines you refer to above, let me add a commentary note (translated by BB) which I think you'll find relevant: "Let him not conceive (himself as) earth (pathavi'm maa ma~n~nii) Comy: He [S:the learner/trainer, i.e sekkha - an ariyan, but not an arahant] cannot be described either as one who conceives or as one who does not conceive. What is the purport here? Because he has not abandoned any of the conceivings, the worldling is described as one who conceives. The arahat, who has abandoned them all, is described as one who does not conceive. The learner has abandoned the conceiving of views, and has diminished the others. Therefore he cannot be described as one who conceives, like the worldling, nor can he be described as one who does not conceive, like the arahat." S: The sub-comy adds more - here's just a little of it: "....he should not conceive (na ma~n~neyya)....And though the conceivings that are unabandoned have been greatly diminished by him, he still should not conceive through those........This absence of conceiving (ama~n~nanaa) is for the purpose of fully understanding the base; it is not an absence of conceiving achieved through the fully understanding of the base, as in the case with the arahat....."< **** Metta, Sarah ======== #94792 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:18 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Karunadasa: Hence it is contended that in the case of material elements which are positionally inseparable it is not possible to say: "This is the quality of that one and that is the quality of this one." 95 95. Vsm 444-45. , ..... S: Can you give me the Vism quote with a little context for this? When a rupa appears, its 'quality' or characteristic can be known by developed panna. To moha, nothing can be known and no qualities or characteristics distinguished. ========c: happily! Vism (PPn) ch.14: 37. 1. Herein, the eye's characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements that is ready for the impact of visible data; or its characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements originated by kamma sourcing from desire to see. {14} Its function is to pick up [an object] {15} among visible data. It is manifested as the footing of eye-consciousness. Its proximate cause is primary elements born of kamma sourcing from desire to see. c: so on for the ear, etc. and then: 42. Some {16}, however, say that the eye is sensitivity of primary elements that have fire in excess, and that the ear, nose, and tongue, are sensitivity of primary elements that have [respectively] air, earth, and water, in excess, and that the body is that of all [four equally]. Others say that the eye is sensitivity of those that have fire in excess, and that the ear, nose, tongue, and body, are [sensitivity] of those that have [respectively] aperture, air, water, and earth, in excess. They should be asked to quote a sutta. They will certainly not find one. 43. But some give as their reason that it is because these [several sensitivities] are [respectively] aided by visible data, etc., as qualities of fire, and so on. {17} They should be asked 'But who has said that visible data, etc., are qualities of fire and so on? [445] For it is not possible to say of primary elements, which remain always inseparable, {18} that "This is a 44. quality of this one, that is a quality of that one"'. Then they may say 'Just as you assume, from excess of some primary element in such and such material things, the [respective] functions of upholding (sandhaara.na), etc., for earth, etc., so from finding visibility, etc., [respectively] in a state of excess {19} in material things that have fire in excess, one may assume that visible data, etc., are [respectively] qualities of these'. They should be told 'We might assume it if there were more odour in cotton, which has earth in excess, than in fermented liquor, which has water in excess, and if the colour of cold water were weaker than the colour of hot water, which has 45. heat in excess. But since neither of these is a fact, you should therefore give up conjecturing the difference to be in the supporting primary elements. Just as the natures of visible objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference exists'. {20} This is how it should be taken. But what is it that is not common to them all? {21} It is the kamma itself that is the reason for their difference. Therefore their difference is due to difference of kamma, not to difference of primary elements; for if there were difference of primary elements, sensitivity itself would not arise, since the Ancients have said: 'Sensitivity if of those that are equal, not of those that are unequal'. connie #94793 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:21 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Scott, Connie & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > Scott: In a footnote, RD adds ('*...*' by me): > > "This is the aspect of the moist or liquid element *in an object > compact of several elements*. The one essential 'mark' or aapo- dhaatu > is pagghara.na.m, flowing...But 'cohesiveness of form means the > cohering condition of some concrete in which there is superfluity of > solid (Asl. 335). For it is by the cohesive force of the fluid > element that lumps of iron or what not are made rigid. Similarily in > the case of stones, mountains, palms, tusks, horns, etc. > > "Hence Buddhaghosa passes on to discuss the mutually related spheres > of the elements and their apparent approximations to each other, as in > viscous things, e.g. or congealed liquid, or boiling water. Corrupt > MSS, however, render parts of the disquisition hard to follow. His > conclusion is that whereas the elements may vary in their condition as > phenomena, their essential mark never alters, however latent it may > be. And he quotes, as the A.t.thaanaparikappa sutta, A,i,122, that it > is easier for the four essentials to change their essential character > than for the seeker of [Nibbaana] (the Noble Student to alter his high > estate (Asl. 336)." .... S: I don't understand the last paraphrased quote about it being "easier for the four essentials to change their essential character.....". Am I being dim or is there an error here? Metta, Sarah The main point again... "...four Great Essentials; **but there is no such thing as alteration of characteristics**...." ======== #94794 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > ... > S: Rain as much as you like.....It couldn't be more than the rain > outside as I write*:-). James: Gosh, this is ironic. I saw on the news that there were massive floods in Bali from the rain. And six people died. I hope you and Jon are doing okay. > > I agree, that it's not the particular words that matter and that the > texts *should be* read as *a whole*. Connie recently gave a good > quote about how it's no use reading one or two suttas in isolation - > the teachings all *conform* to the Dhamma-Vinaya. James: Now, don't twist around what I said. I wrote that the entire section on metta in the Vism. has to be taken into consideration. That is because that is the way Buddhaghosa wrote it. In no way do I mean to support that weird philosophy which states that every sutta is somehow the Abhidhamma. That's just plain crazy! > > So this was my point too, the Buddha encouraged us to have metta > anytime to anyone so that it can develop and become a brahma vihara. James: Again, this isn't what the Buddha taught. The Brahma viharas are developed at a specific time with a specific goal in mind. You are not going to develop the Brahma viharas by going around through out your day smiling at everyone. That is going to be fake metta (which I have written extensively about before). > It develops through an understanding of its quality and value. Never > is there a 'self' that follows instructions or does anything about it > whilst sitting or standing or at any other time. James: Not true. Not true. Not true. There are instructions to follow and a person is not going to be able to develop the Brahma viharas within a single lifetime unless he/she follows those instructions. > > Let's pursue this (at a very slow pace this end) until the rain > ceases:-). James: I hope the rain has settled down- it seems that this metta topic never will! ;-)) > > Metta, > > Sarah Metta, James #94795 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:42 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nichiconn Dear Sarah, TG, > "Hence Buddhaghosa passes on to discuss the mutually related spheres of the elements and their apparent approximations to each other, as in viscous things, e.g. or congealed liquid, or boiling water. as the A.t.thaanaparikappa sutta, A,i,122, that is easier for the four essentials to change their essential character than for the seeker of [Nibbaana] (the Noble Student to alter his high estate (Asl. 336)." .... S: I don't understand the last paraphrased quote about it being "easier for the four essentials to change their essential character.....". Am I being dim or is there an error here? ... The main point again... "...four Great Essentials; **but there is no such thing as alteration of characteristics**...." c: The point is that both are impossible, but if an instance Were ever to occur, it would have to be in the material elements. peace, connie #94796 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:54 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Sarah, Friends, sorry #94792 got away before it was meant to... guess it was more than long enough, tho! >Karunadasa: This explanation is justified on the following grounds: If they were to exist inside each other, then they would not perform their respective functions. If they were to exist outside each other, then they would be resolvable.94 The principle of positional inseparability is also resorted to as a critique of the distinction between substance and quality. .... S: ??? .... c: This reminds me of the wagonload of salt... sorry i don't remember where it comes from right now... but the people have this pile of white stuff / visible object on the wagon and call it salt even though salt would have to be known by taste & they weigh this much 'salt' on the scale when it's actually the property of, i think, the earth element. Huh? Just that I think the substance Is the quality and it's our thinking that gets confused. Don't really know whether that's K's point, but that's my take. peace, connie #94797 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:00 pm Subject: (No subject) nichiconn Hi Howard, Howard: Karunadasa writes "Nothing arises from a single cause. This rules out theories of a single cause (ekakaranavada).103 Their rejection is of great significance, showing that the Abhidhammic view of existence rejects all monistic theories which seek to explain the origin of the world from a single cause, whether this single cause is conceived as a personal God or an impersonal Godhead. It also serves as a critique of those metaphysical theories which attempt to reduce the world of experience to an underlying transempirical principle." This is an overstatement, IMO, (only) as regards the logic involved, for the multiple condition/multiple effect principle is with regard to relations among conditioned dhammas. c: There I go assuming again - "of course he's talking about the conditioned universe" - but then again, after our brief 'foundation' exchange, it's no surprise that you wouldn't make the same assumption... well, and you're more, or different, logic minded than I am. I don't know, would nibbaana as 'the only reality' be a monistic theory? peace, connie #94798 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/12 connie : > Dear Sarah, Friends, > .... > c: This reminds me of the wagonload of salt... sorry i don't remember where it comes from right now... but the people have this pile of white stuff / visible object on the wagon and call it salt even though salt would have to be known by taste & they weigh this much 'salt' on the scale when it's actually the property of, i think, the earth element. Huh? Just that I think the substance Is the quality and it's our thinking that gets confused. Don't really know whether that's K's point, but that's my take. From Milinda 2:3. The King appears to be a pushover for a mish-mash of spurious logic, that confuses the experience of saltiness with the causes of saltiness. Here it is: 16. The Elder said: 'Is salt, O king, recognisable by the eye?' 'Yes, Sir, it is.' 'But be careful, O king.' 'Well then, Sir, is it perceptible by the tongue?' 'Yes, that is right.' 'But, Sir, is it only by the tongue that every kind of salt is distinguished?' 'Yes, every kind.' 'If that be so, Sir, why do bullocks bring whole cart-loads of it? Is it not salt and nothing else that ought to be so brought?' 'It is impossible to bring salt by itself. But all these conditions have run together into one, and produced the distinctive thing called salt (For instance): salt is heavy, too. But is it possible, O king, to weigh salt?' 'Certainly, Sir.' Nay, great king, it is not the salt you weigh, it is the weight.' 'You are ready, Nâgasena, in argument.' Cheers Herman #94799 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: asl question TGrand458@... Hi Connie Ahh, OK. I was probably wrong then. Anyway, it does seem like something is missing or mixed up. TG OUT In a message dated 1/11/2009 3:10:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: c: Yes, but. It's giving (another) example of a case where the sense-door process, due to the weakness of the object, doesn't quite get as far as registration.c: Yes, but. It's giving (another) example of a case where the sense-door process, due to the weakness of the object, doesn't quite get & wonder if other editions say the same thing & it's just me it's not making sense to. Thanks, though. =========== * 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)