#98000 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Fri May 22, 2009 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflections on death ajahnjose My Dear Sarah and Nina, you asked me to share some of my reflections on death. Well, when I enter the Hospice, I kew that I had only a few weeks and as a Doctor l knew what was happening. I was angry and very bad caracter, because I am 63 and I question why me, I know all the teachings of Buddha,but yet I do want to live and enjoy my life and my dogs, not good thinking for a Monk, but I was never a good Monk anyway. The only good thing is that I have no pain because they give me plenty of morfine. I have reflected my happy live, I was blessedtobe born in a very rich family and as my father wasan ambassador Ilive in Moscow, Denmark, went to school in Swizertlan and the USA and never nedd anything.I remember my youth and my happy moments, funny enough never remember my mistakes and bad actionsthat I did. Only good things, how I gave my fortune to my sons and the tobacco plantations to my sister, who just died last january. I still have 22 US millions in a Bank of Hawaii which I have left all to charity, including the Foundation of Ajahn Sujin, dhammasuka and other monasteries so they can continue with the teaching od Buddha. My six sons agree,because they already got a very large sum each one.This days, in the evening, before I get the morfine I Pray Buddhist prayers and also a Hail Mary, my roots were Catholics, I cant scaped from them, and I hope not to wake up next morning.. Yet I am getting better but I am fed upwith the radiation and the chimotherapy which makes me very sick a vomit for hrs.I am stillangry that my life is being robed,once again not a very good Monk, because my detachment is not completed. I will always treasure that meeting that I had in Bangkog with all of you. All my love.Metta. Ajahn Jose signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Thu, 21/5/09, Nina van Gorkom wrote: From: Nina van Gorkom Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflections on death To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, 21 May, 2009, 5:52 PM Venerable Yanatharo, I join Sarah, and I am so glad about the good news. We welcome any of your reflections on death and life, with respect, Nina. Op 21-mei-2009, om 4:57 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Dear Ven Yanatharo, > > I'm very glad to hear that you're being well taken care of at the > hospice and that the charges have been dropped. Thank you for > sharing your good news with us. #98001 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri May 22, 2009 4:19 am Subject: Re: Reflections on death szmicio Dear Ajahn Jose >I am stillangry that my life is being robed,once again not a very >good Monk, because my detachment is not completed. I will always ?>treasure that meeting that I had in Bangkog with all of you. L: Isnt it just thinking that happens now? I like very much bhikkhuna Sutta: I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's Park. Then a certain nun said to a certain man, "Go, my good man, to my lord Ananda and, on arrival, bowing your head to his feet in my name, tell him, 'The nun named such-and-such, venerable sir, is sick, in pain, severely ill. She bows her head to the feet of her lord Ananda and says, "It would be good if my lord Ananda were to go to the nuns' quarters, to visit this nun out of sympathy for her."'" Responding, "Yes, my lady," the man then approached Ven. Ananda and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Ananda, "The nun named such-and-such, venerable sir, is sick, in pain, severely ill. She bows her head to the feet of her lord Ananda and says, 'It would be good if my lord Ananda were to go to the nuns' quarters, to visit this nun out of sympathy for her.'" Ven. Ananda accepted with silence. Then in the early morning, having put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, he went to the nuns' quarters. The nun saw Ven. Ananda coming from afar. On seeing him, she lay down on a bed, having covered her head. Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge. "'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then, at a later time, he abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will through the ending of the fermentations enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then, at a later time, he abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. "This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge." Then the nun getting up from her bed, arranging her upper robe over one shoulder, and bowing down with her head at Ven. Ananda's feet said, "A transgression has overcome me, venerable sir, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to act in this way. May my lord Ananda please accept this confession of my transgression as such, so that I may restrain myself in the future." "Yes, sister, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to act in this way. But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future." That is what Ven. Ananda said. Gratified, the nun delighted in Ven. Ananda's words. ----------------------------------- My best wises Lukas #98002 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri May 22, 2009 5:32 am Subject: Be here now szmicio Dear friends, Q.: Awareness is anatta, not self, but can we do anything to make it arise? Is all we can do just listening and studying? Bhikkhu Dhammadharo: Can we' listen, can 'we' study? Can you in reality force yourself to study or to understand what is being said now? We are here in an environment now where Dhamma is being discussed, but aren't there moments when there is distraction, when we are misunderstanding what we have heard anyway? We may take it the way we want to take it, or we may want to make it fit with what we think is the right way. You can't even say 'we' can listen, because there will be listening in the right way as much as conditions will allow. There will be studying of Dhamma in the right way as much as conditions will allow, no more. It is not self. Hearing now is not self. Studying is not self Right attention is not self. So, if we think that we can study and we can listen we are misleading ourselves. We can be aware while studying and listening, in order to learn that such moments are not self. The more we listen in the right way, if there are conditions for it, the more will we understand the difference between just thinking and being aware. We will understand the difference between trying to control realities and just letting awareness arise naturally and being aware of what appears for one brief moment. Right understanding only develops little by little. Some of us have been here with this Dhamma group for two or three years. But this is nothing compared with the number of lives we might have to carry on. Because we could die today and we don't know where we will be born, and we don't know whether there will be any conditions for a Dhamma group in a next life. Look how many years it has taken us to find out what we are finding out now. Who knows how long we will live. We may worry that understanding develops so slowly. What is the use of worrying and thinking, 'I did not find out soon enough', or 'I am not going to have long enough to study', or, 'I have got to find out faster'. That is all attachment. We are not developing detachment. In a next life conditions may be better or worse, we do not know. Why not develop understanding in this life? ----------- My best wishes Lukas #98003 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 22, 2009 5:59 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (03) buddhatrue Hi Han (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > Dear All, > > This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. > Introduction (continuation) > > -------------------- > > Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. What we take for our body is composed of many groups or units, consisting each of different kinds of rúpa, and the rúpas in such a group arise together and fall away together. I had a question about this part. Is there a limit to how "large" these groups of rupa can be? For example, are the groups of rupa composing a human body the same size as the groups of rupas composing a whale's body? And, is there a limit to the number of rupas which arise together? Metta, James ps. If these questions are answered later in the book, feel free to just direct me to the page and chapter. I don't want to tire anyone with redundant typing. #98004 From: han tun Date: Fri May 22, 2009 6:46 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (03) hantun1 Dear James (Nina), Text: Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. What we take for our body is composed of many groups or units, consisting each of different kinds of rúpa, and the rúpas in such a group arise together and fall away together. James: I had a question about this part. Is there a limit to how "large" these groups of rupa can be? For example, are the groups of rupa composing a human body the same size as the groups of rupas composing a whale's body? And, is there a limit to the number of rupas which arise together? ps. If these questions are answered later in the book, feel free to just direct me to the page and chapter. I don't want to tire anyone with redundant typing. Han: You are so considerate, James, by allowing me to refer to the later part of the book. Yes, the Groups of Ruupas are mentioned in chapter 9 of the book. If the text does not answer all your questions, you can raise them again when we come to that chapter. Or, perhaps, Nina may wish to say something right now. As an additional information, I would like to request you to read A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 252-255, under sub-chapter, The Grouping of Material Phenomena (kalaapayojana). I would also like to refer to The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon. In that book you will find the following text. Grouping of Material Qualities (Ruupa-kalaapa) The 28 types of ruupa are not found separately in nature. They are produced by the four causes in the form of tiny material groups called kalaapas. Kalaapas have the following four features: 1 All the ruupas in a kalaapa arise together, i.e. they have a common genesis. 2 They also cease or dissolve together, i.e. they have a common cessation. 3 They all depend on the four great essentials present in the kalaapa for their arising, i.e. they have a common dependence. 4 They are so thoroughly mixed that they cannot be distinguished, i.e. they co-exist. It should be noted that kalaapas are so small that they are invisible even under electronic microscopes. The size of kalaapa in the human realm is just a 10–5th of a paramaanu, which is smaller than an atom. So kalaapas are comparable to electrons, protons and neutrons in size. There are 21 types of kalaapas = 9 kammaja kalaapas + 6 cittaja kalaapas + 4 utuja kalaapas + 2 aahaaraja kalaapas. -------------------- Han: The only thing I cannot answer is the comparison between human and other beings. Perhaps, Nina can answer that. Kind regards, Han #98005 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 22, 2009 8:03 am Subject: [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 37. nilovg Dear friends, Someone asked me whether it is possible to have kusala cittas after akusala vipåka and akusala cittas after kusala vipåka. There can be kusala cittas after akusala vipåka and akusala cittas after kusala vipåka, because the conditions for these different types of cittas are entirely different. Vipåka-citta is the result of kamma, a deed committed in the past. Akusala cittas and kusala cittas are conditioned by our accumulations of akusala and kusala. I will give an example of an unpleasant object after the experience of which there can be different types of citta, kusala citta or akusala citta, depending on one’s accumulations. If one sees a dead cat, different types of citta may arise on account of what is seen. We may think of the dead cat without awareness of realities and we may take the cat for “something” which stays. We may have aversion towards it. What is the dead cat? When we are looking there is visible object, when we touch it there is hardness or softness. Through the nose odour presents itself. It is because of saññå, remembrance, that a “whole”, the dead cat, is remembered. In reality there is no dead cat, there are only different elements arising and falling away. Someone who has developed calm may have kusala cittas with calm when he sees a dead cat. He may take it as a meditation subject, the foulness of the body. He may remember that also his own body is subject to decay. If he has accumulated skill for jhåna, jhåna can be attained with this subject. Someone who develops vipassanå can be reminded of the true nature of realities, their nature of impermanence and anattå. He is aware of whatever nåma or rúpa presents itself at that moment in order to know realities as they are. He may even at that moment attain enlightenment. It all depends on one’s accumulations whether there are, after having seen a foul object, akusala cittas, mahå-kusala citta (kusala cittas of the sense-sphere), jhåna-cittas or lokuttara cittas. ****** Nina. #98006 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 22, 2009 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflections on death upasaka_howard Dear Bhante - In a message dated 5/21/2009 11:29:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ajahnjose@... writes: My Dear Sarah and Nina, you asked me to share some of my reflections on death. Well, when I enter the Hospice, I kew that I had only a few weeks and as a Doctor l knew what was happening. I was angry and very bad caracter, because I am 63 and I question why me, I know all the teachings of Buddha,but yet I do want to live and enjoy my life and my dogs, not good thinking for a Monk, but I was never a good Monk anyway. The only good thing is that I have no pain because they give me plenty of morfine. I have reflected my happy live, I was blessedtobe born in a very rich family and as my father wasan ambassador Ilive in Moscow, Denmark, went to school in Swizertlan and the USA and never nedd anything.I remember my youth and my happy moments, funny enough never remember my mistakes and bad actionsthat I did. Only good things, how I gave my fortune to my sons and the tobacco plantations to my sister, who just died last january. I still have 22 US millions in a Bank of Hawaii which I have left all to charity, including the Foundation of Ajahn Sujin, dhammasuka and other monasteries so they can continue with the teaching od Buddha. My six sons agree,because they already got a very large sum each one.This days, in the evening, before I get the morfine I Pray Buddhist prayers and also a Hail Mary, my roots were Catholics, I cant scaped from them, and I hope not to wake up next morning.. Yet I am getting better but I am fed upwith the radiation and the chimotherapy which makes me very sick a vomit for hrs.I am stillangry that my life is being robed,once again not a very good Monk, because my detachment is not completed. I will always treasure that meeting that I had in Bangkog with all of you. All my love.Metta. Ajahn Jose signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose ============================= For various reasons, none immediate, death has been much on my mind recently. Bhante, I just want to tell you that I am so pleased that your recent legal matters have been resolved and are now a thing of the past. I also want you to know that in my opinion, despite the sufferings that you have had and that you certainly have now, yours has a blessed life and a worthy one, and that your compassionate efforts on behalf of others have made you a beautiful monk - both a wonderful Buddhist, a wonderful Catholic, and a wonderful Jew. Kindness is above all, in my opinion, and your life is a life of kindness and goodness, well lived, with courage and generosity. I wish you ease, Sir, and peace of mind, and I wish you complete freedom within your heart and mind. Love, Howard Freedom /Spiritual freedom, as the opposite of this condition of bondage, must therefore mean freedom from lust, hatred, and delusion. When lust, hatred, and delusion are abandoned in a man, cut off at the root so that they no longer remain even in latent form, then a man finds for himself a seat of autonomy from which he can never be dethroned, a position of mastery from which he can never be shaken. Even though he be a mendicant gathering his alms from house to house, he is still a king; even though he be locked behind bars of steel, he is inwardly free. He is now sovereign over his own mind, and as such over the whole universe; for nothing in the universe can take from him that deliverance of heart which is his inalienable possession. He dwells in the world among the things of the world, yet stands in perfect poise above the world's ebb and flow. If pleasant objects come within range of his perception he does not yearn for them, if painful objects come into range he does not recoil from them. He looks upon both with equanimity and notes their rise and fall. Toward the pairs of opposites which keep the world in rotation he is without concern, the cycle of attraction and repulsion he has broken at its base. A lump of gold and a lump of clay are to his eyes the same; praise and scorn are to his ears empty sounds. He abides in the freedom he has won through long and disciplined effort. He is free from suffering, for with the defilements uprooted no more can sorrow or grief fall upon his heart; there remains only that perfect bliss unsullied by any trace of craving./ (Bhikkhu Bodhi, from The Taste of freedom) #98007 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 22, 2009 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflections on death buddhatrue Hi Ajahn Jose, I didn't see your recent post or I would have responded sooner. I am so glad that you are still alive, plugging away, and contemplating on what your life has meant. Further comments to follow: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Dear Bhante - > > In a message dated 5/21/2009 11:29:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > ajahnjose@... writes: > > My Dear Sarah and Nina, you asked me to share some of my reflections on > death. Well, when I enter the Hospice, I kew that I had only a few weeks and > as a Doctor l knew what was happening. I was angry and very bad caracter, > because I am 63 and I question why me, I know all the teachings of > Buddha,but yet I do want to live and enjoy my life and my dogs, not good thinking > for a Monk, but I was never a good Monk anyway. > ============================= > For various reasons, none immediate, death has been much on my mind > recently. > Bhante, I just want to tell you that I am so pleased that your recent > legal matters have been resolved and are now a thing of the past. I also > want you to know that in my opinion, despite the sufferings that you have had > and that you certainly have now, yours has a blessed life and a worthy > one, and that your compassionate efforts on behalf of others have made you a > beautiful monk - both a wonderful Buddhist, a wonderful Catholic, and a > wonderful Jew. Kindness is above all, in my opinion, and your life is a life > of kindness and goodness, well lived, with courage and generosity. I wish > you ease, Sir, and peace of mind, and I wish you complete freedom within your > heart and mind. > James: I agree with all that Howard has had to say. And to also add that I think it is only a good monk (or anyone) who can realize his/her weaknesses. That is the mindfulness that is required of a good monk- and you are a good monk. I consider it an honor to have known you. I would personally like to thank you for your friendship and all of your very sweet and humorous e-mails you sent me off-list. You were very supportive of me when I was down and I hope I can do the same for you now. Thanks for everything!! I hope that when I face my final moments (if I get the chance) I can look back on my life and see all of the good things I have done, like you can do now. You have renounced millions of dollars and dedicated your life to serving others through actions and mental development. That is something special and unique- like the Lord Buddha. That is something to really feel happy about and I feel great joy for you! (So, a few unsavory people took advantage of your position and kindness....that's only reason to feel compassion for them.) Thank you so much Ajahn Jose. Your life has made a difference. Metta, James #98008 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 22, 2009 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (03) nilovg Dear Han and James, Op 22-mei-2009, om 8:46 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: The only thing I cannot answer is the comparison between human > and other beings. Perhaps, Nina can answer that. --------- James: I had a question about this part. Is there a limit to how "large" these groups of rupa can be? For example, are the groups of rupa composing a human body the same size as the groups of rupas composing a whale's body? And, is there a limit to the number of rupas which arise together? --------- N: A group pf rupas consists of at least eight rupas , the eight inseparable rupas: the four great Elements (Earth, Water, Fire, wind, the basis of all of the rupas) and: colour, odour, flavour, nutritive essence. This will be explained later on in the book. Han gave details of different groups which have in addition to the eight inseparables other rupas, such as the senses. Han spoke about the rupas being extremely tiny and these units or goups are very tiny. There are many groups arising and falling away in the human body and evenso in a whale. But nobody can count the amount of groups. The rupas themselves are just as tiny in a whale's body. In some animals some rupas are missing, they have not all the senses. Nina. #98009 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 22, 2009 1:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (11-12), and commentary, part 1. nilovg Sutta 11. Walshe: DN 33.1.11(11) 'Four knowledges: knowledge of Dhamma, of what is consonant with it (anvaye ~naa.na'm), knowledge of others' minds *1059 (paricce ~naa.na'm), conventional knowledge *1060 (sammuti-~naa.na.m). (Cattaari ~naa.naani â€" dhamme ~naa.na.m, anvaye ~naa.na.m, pariye [paricce (sii. ka.), paricchede (syaa. pii. ka.) .tiikaa oloke tabbaa] ~naa.na.m, sammutiyaa ~naa.na.m [sammati~naa.na.m (syaa. ka.m.)] ----------- The Co explains Dhamma ~naa.na: the maggacitta penetrates in a single moment the four noble Truths. We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (XXII): <... the path-knowledge penetrates to the four truths simultaneously in a single moment- it penetrates to suffering by penetrating to it with full understanding, penetrates to origination by penetrating to it with abandoning, it penetrates to the path by penetrating to it with developing and penetrates to cessation penetrating to it with realizing. What is meant? by making cessation its object it reaches, sees and pierces the four truths.> The Co. explains that the four path-consciousnesses and the four fruition-consciousnesses are included in knowledge of Dhamma. The subco explains further in a way similar to the’Dispeller of Delusion’ (II, p. 162): ----------- N: As function: the magga-citta penetrates the four noble Truths. As to object, this is cessation, a term for nibbaana. The person who attains enlightenment does not rely on someone else. He has developed understanding to the degree that enlightenment can be attained. ------- As to the second kind of knowledge, consequential knowledge, a~nvaya ~naa.na, this is the reviewing knowledge arising after enlightenment has been attained. Nibbaana is reviewed, the defilements that were eradicated are reviewed and, for the non-arahats, the defilements that stii have to be eradicated are reviewed. The Co states that also in the past the four Truths were known and also in the future they will be known. It was known that these five khandhas are the Truth of dukkha; that this is craving, the Truth of the origin of dukkha; that this is cessation [N: nibbaana], the Truth of the cessation of dukkha; that this is the Path, the truth of the Path. The Co explains that by the reviewing knowledge he draws a conclusion, after he has seen Dhamma, after having reached it, comprehended it and penetrated it. He draws the conclusion called reviewing knowledge regarding the past and the future. -------- The third knowledge is knowledge of others' minds (paricce ~naa.na'm). As to the fourth kind of knowledge, sammuti-~naa.na, the co. explains that all the other kinds of knowledge are conventional knowledge. ------- N: The five khandhas are dukkha. In order to understand the truth of dukkha, it has to be known what the five khandhas are: all naamas and ruupas that appear at this moment. It has to be thoroughly known what nama is, what rupa is, they have different characteristics. What arises and falls away is impermanent and thus dukkha, it cannot be of any refuge. Without understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupa their impermanence and the nature of dukkha cannot be realized. (to be continued) Nina. #98010 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 22, 2009 11:44 pm Subject: Complete Detachment! bhikkhu.sama... Friends! Complete Detachment by Relinquishing All! Friends, we should train in this very way: I will not cling to neither the eye, nor to the ear, nor to the nose, nor to the tongue, nor to the body, nor to the mind... Thus will my consciousness depend neither on awareness of any sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, nor any mental states... Thus will my consciousness depend neither on any visual contact, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, or any mental contact... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any feeling aroused from all these visual, otherwise sensed or ... mental contacts... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any form, emotion, perception, construction, or any deliberately directed attention! Thus will my consciousness depend neither on any solidity, fluidity, heat, motion, space, nor on any sort of mentality whatsoever... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any infinitude of space, any infinitude of consciousness, any sphere of nothingness, any sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nor on any other subtle state... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on anything in this world, nor on anything in any other transcendent world beyond this world… Thus will my consciousness be independent of what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, searched for & examined by the mind... It will be without base, source, & object, unconnected, unconstrained, unrelated, autonomous, fully freed, sovereign, sublime and supreme… This -only this- itself leads to the released liberation of final freedom!!! Source: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: Majjhima NikÄya http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Complete Detachment! #98011 From: han tun Date: Sat May 23, 2009 2:54 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (05) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Introduction (continuation) -------------------- There are not only rúpas of the body, there are also rúpas which are the material phenomena outside the body. What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rúpas and these originate from temperature. We may wonder whether there are no other factors apart from the element of heat that contribute to the growth of plants, such as soil, light and moisture. It is true that these factors are the right conditions that have to be present so that a plant can grow. But what we call soil, light and moisture are, when we are more precise, different combinations of rúpas, none of which can arise without the element of heat or temperature that produces them. Rúpas outside the body are only produced by temperature, not by kamma, citta or nutrition. -------------------- Introduction to be continued. with metta, Han #98012 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:29 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (With apologies to you and others for the delay in responding.) (97797) > -------------- > Well that is lovely, but you are coming from the idea of a general principle and I am trying to make some sense of what is being said. I have yet to hear a sensible explanation of how a "not-self" can be a positive characteristic. I can't get a specific explanation of why anyone thinks this is the case, except for the general type of assertion above, that it *must* be a positive attribute rather than something that is being said to not be there. > -------------- I must protest! ;-)). In the passage from the Samohavinidani quoted by Scott in a related thread, the meaning was given as this: "The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self. ... In a later post you seemed to find this description, and the descriptions of the other 2 characteristics, to be satisfactory http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/97453 > -------------- But what is the original point of 'not self?' The point was never to assert that there was such a thing as a not-self. It was to refute the assertion that these things were atta or Atman. It was atta and Atman that came first and anatta came second. Anatta did not exist by itself as a 'characteristic' until the Hindu concepts of the temporary and eternal atta and Atman were outlined and the Buddha gave anatta as the refutation of these philosophies. > -------------- As far as I'm aware, what you describe here as "the original point" of the "not-self" characteristic is not based on anything found in the texts. On the contrary, in fact, the texts say that the teaching on the 3 characteristics is a teaching that is common to all Buddhas; this would mean it is independent of the thinking of the time. To my understanding, the idea of "self" exists in multiple forms through all ages, regardless of the philosophies of the time. The implication of what you say above seems to be that if the Buddha were teaching at a time when there was no religious/philosophical concept of the temporary and eternal atta and Atman he would not need to teach the characteristic of "not-self". I think that misses the point of what wrong view of self is. > -------------- So to then come along and say that 'anatta' is a real thing that has been a permanent characteristic that has always been part of a dhamma seems to be just a kind of imperative based on concept rather than either a logical or perceptual truth. > -------------- I see nothing wrong with the idea that dhammas have characteristics that do not change over time. > -------------- > This mark of anatta is meant to point out the lack of self, not to create another kind of self: a permanent eternal thingy that arises with every nama and rupa. ... So, that is my view, and rather than dismiss it wholesale because "anatta must be a positive attribute," it would be more useful to somehow grapple with my assertions and refute them on the merits. That would be my overly optimistic hope anyway. > -------------- I am mainly concerned with identifying the orthodox commentarial position, and I hope I have done that (you may not agree with it, of course). The problem with discussing between ourselves on 'the merits' is that, as you've pointed out in an earlier post, it's a case of the blind arguing with the blind, and our idea of the 'merits' is so skewed as to make any conclusion reached of little or no value. Nevertheless, I have mentioned above why I would reject any hypothesis that the teaching on anatta was given in order to address certain views that were prevalent at the time, and that is my argument "on the merits". Over to you, then ;-)) Jon #98013 From: "Scott" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila scottduncan2 Dear Phil (Nina and Sarah), More regarding: P: "...Failing to challenge unwholesome habits re sexual lust, such as using pornography, is inviting conditioning of such deeds..." Me: "I think that the above is a rather misdirected reading of the Dhamma as some sort of form of asceticism. I don't consider the Dhamma to be a mere treatise on 'self-control'. My take on what you describe is that, rather than the peaceful and quiet vibe that would accompany a moment of knowing lust as lust, you are finding instead more moments filled with anger and aversion with, apparently, a concept as object..." Scott: In the Faultless Triplet section of the Pa.t.thaana, under "(vi) Faulty state is related to indeterminate state by strong-dependence condition" (vol. I, p. 163), is the following: "By the strong-dependence of lust, (one) tortures oneself, tortures oneself fully, experiences the suffering caused by searching ... hate ... delusion ... conceit ... wrong views ..." Pakatuupanissayo â€" raaga.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. Dosa.m ... pe ... moha.m ... pe ... maana.m ... pe ... di.t.thi.m ... pe ... patthana.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. I'd be interested is either Nina or Sarah have access to the commentary on this passage. Sincerely, Scott. #98014 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:38 am Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97814) > ---------------------- > A dhamma does not arise and fall away within one moment; it takes a number of moments; > ---------------------- To my understanding of the teachings, dhammas arise and fall away within a single, extremely brief moment. Nevertheless, each dhamma is said to have, within that moment, an arising, persisting and ceasing aspect. > ---------------------- so how can panna see the arising and falling away in a single moment? This seems to be self-contradictory. > ---------------------- The arising, persisting and ceasing aspect within the single moment of a dhammas "being" can be known to (highly developed) panna. Such panna would see the dhamma's arising (from not having been), and it's falling away (to no longer being). > ---------------------- > It makes more sense to say that over the course of several cittas, panna re-arising and accumulating, being passed from one citta to the next, will pass on and note the phases of arising and falling away over several moments, in order to accumulate and understand the arising and falling away process. There is no reason why it all has to take place in a single moment. I think it is made clear that these processes are cumulative and since cittas have no problem passing on information from one citta to the next, through bhavanga cittas and other mechanisms, there is no reason why this should trouble anyone. > ---------------------- As I said before, the knowledge gained by panna is cumulative, so much of what you say here would hold true. Jon #98015 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:47 am Subject: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (97825) > ------------------------------- > According to the Dhammapada, mind "rules". Also, kusala and akusala are matters of mind, the > defilements are matters of mind, guarding the senses is a matter of mindfulness of mind, and awakening > is a matter of mind. > ------------------------------- Yes, awareness and insight are moments of consciousness. But the question under discussion was whether some dhammas are more "worthy" objects of awareness/insight than others. For example, when it comes to guarding the senses (one of the kinds of consciousness you mention), which is a reference to awareness of sense-door experiences, can it be said that awareness of, say, seeing consciousness is of greater "value" than awareness of visible object? > ------------------------------- The primary importance of taking namas as objects of consciousness is to directly > see our craving and aversion and attachment etc. > ------------------------------- Another way of looking at it would be that the primary importance of developing awareness/insight is to gain knowledge, and dispel ignorance and wrong view, as to the way things truly are. It is this knowledge that will eventually (at the moment of enlightenment) eradicate craving and attachment. The ultimate goal is the escape from samsara, not just the eradiation of defilements (with continued existence). > ------------------------------- Mind is CENTRAL to the Dhamma. > ------------------------------- No argument from me on this. Namas are what distinguish sentient beings from the non-sentient. But rupas are also central to the Dhamma, since they are also taken to be other than as they are in truth and reality. Jon #98016 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:56 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97853) > ---------------------- > > It is description, but it is by no means redundant of what will take place. It was spoken for the benefit of those among the listeners, and in later generations, who were capable of applying what they heard. So it is both descriptive and instructive. > > Well I thought it was a point of contention that *anything* in the description of mindfulness practice could be instructive. If it can be an instruction it means that it can be practiced. > ---------------------- A teaching can be instructive without being a practice to be followed. > ---------------------- If the only point is that one must have the prior training to engage successfully in such a practice, then there is not much contention except how one attains such prior training. [I think some prior practice may be involved.] > ---------------------- Some passages in the suttas are applicable to all, others to particular classes of individuals. There's nothing surprising about that, surely. Where a passage is particularly applicable to those who have attained an advanced level of samatha and/or vipassana, the passage should not be read as setting out a path for all and sundry. > ---------------------- > > My point was, however, that it is not a statement of doctrine proclaiming a specific relationship between anapanasati and enlightenment. > > I do not understand this. Are you saying there is no relationship between anapanasati and enlightenment, even for those who have the capacity to do it successfully? > ---------------------- A person may be highly skilled in anapanasati but not in satipatthana. Samatha and vipassana involve different "strains" of panna. Likewise, a person may be highly developed in satipatthana but not in samatha leading to mundane jhana. > ---------------------- > > This description is one of 14 ways mentioned in the sutta in which mindfulness of the body may be developed. > > May we have the capacity to engage them! > ---------------------- And may we remember that the (only) time for development is now! Jon #98017 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 3:58 am Subject: Cittas and cetasikas (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97856) > ---------------------- > > But on the general question of knowing *how* things work, I don't see how this is really possible except as and to the extent that direct understanding is developed. There's only so much we are capable of comprehending, even at an intellectual level. > > Fair enough. I guess it is just up to each of us what we relate to and can adopt as a possibility. > ---------------------- There's a sutta describing the pitfalls of needing to know too much about things before considering the significance of what has been heard. The sutta refers to a person who has been struck by an arrow, but insists on knowing who has fired the arrow before it can be removed. Jon #98018 From: han tun Date: Sat May 23, 2009 4:03 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (05) hantun1 Dear Nina and others, The Text: There are not only rúpas of the body, there are also rúpas which are the material phenomena outside the body. What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rúpas and these originate from temperature. We may wonder whether there are no other factors apart from the element of heat that contribute to the growth of plants, such as soil, light and moisture. It is true that these factors are the right conditions that have to be present so that a plant can grow. But what we call soil, light and moisture are, when we are more precise, different combinations of rúpas, none of which can arise without the element of heat or temperature that produces them. Rúpas outside the body are only produced by temperature, not by kamma, citta or nutrition. Han: It is difficult to accept that there are no other factors apart from the element of heat that contribute to the growth of trees and plants. It is not only in the book by Nina. All other books say the same thing. But what about the [sap] or the watery juice carrying chemical products from the roots to the branches through the bark? Does the sap not contain aahaaraja-kalaapas? If the sap contains aahaaraja-kalaapa, does the aahaaraja-kalaapa in the sap different from the aahaaraja-kalaapa that the humans consume? If there is no difference, can we not say that utu and aahaara contribute to the growth of trees and plants (and not just by utu)? Respectfully, Han #98019 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 23, 2009 12:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/22/2009 11:48:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (97825) > ------------------------------- > According to the Dhammapada, mind "rules". Also, kusala and akusala are matters of mind, the > defilements are matters of mind, guarding the senses is a matter of mindfulness of mind, and awakening > is a matter of mind. > ------------------------------- Yes, awareness and insight are moments of consciousness. But the question under discussion was whether some dhammas are more "worthy" objects of awareness/insight than others. For example, when it comes to guarding the senses (one of the kinds of consciousness you mention), which is a reference to awareness of sense-door experiences, can it be said that awareness of, say, seeing consciousness is of greater "value" than awareness of visible object? ------------------------------------------ It is neither the visible object nor the seeing that is being guarded, but the mind that is being guarded. Guarding the senses is always guarding the mind door - guarding against reaction for or against, whatever sense-door is active, guarding against craving and aversion for the knowing and the known, guarding against loss of attention, and generally guarding against the hindrances and loss of mindfulness. ------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------- The primary importance of taking namas as objects of consciousness is to directly > see our craving and aversion and attachment etc. > ------------------------------- Another way of looking at it would be that the primary importance of developing awareness/insight is to gain knowledge, and dispel ignorance and wrong view, as to the way things truly are. It is this knowledge that will eventually (at the moment of enlightenment) eradicate craving and attachment. The ultimate goal is the escape from samsara, not just the eradiation of defilements (with continued existence). ------------------------------------ When the defilements are gone, it is no concern whether experience continues or not. ------------------------------------- > ------------------------------- Mind is CENTRAL to the Dhamma. > ------------------------------- No argument from me on this. Namas are what distinguish sentient beings from the non-sentient. But rupas are also central to the Dhamma, since they are also taken to be other than as they are in truth and reality. Jon =========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98020 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 4:27 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends Q.: Is there any concentration involved? Bhikkhu: Yes, there is always concentration. There is concentration with each moment of consciousness. There is right concentration if there is no intention to take awareness which does not last anyway and put it somewhere. Just a moment of awareness and then be aware again of another object. You can't keep your awareness here or there. That is wrong concentration. Remember, the whole aim is to see anatta, uncontrollability. Not to see controllability. So much patience is required to start straight and to keep going right. We have to let go of all our ideas of having awareness. We have to drop all our ideas that we are going to do it right this time, we are going to do it straight, we are going to have it now, we are going to be aware of this or that. At those moments there is no awareness. One moment of real awareness in one lifetime- very rich man because it is right and it will condition more of the same. Countless moments of wrong awareness and you are not only not wealthy, you are getting poorer every moment, because you are accumulating more and more wrong understanding. This will make it more likely to have more wrong understanding in the future. So, right understanding, not intention, is the condition for awareness to arise. Right understanding is not only one of the factors of the eightfold Path, it is the first factor. ----------------- My best wishes Lukas #98021 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 6:26 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep & all, > > I'd like to go through your comments here carefully - > > --- On Thu, 14/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > > > S: Visuddhimagga, VII, 39: > > > > "As to the shortness of the moment: in the ultimate sense the life > > moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the > > occurence of a single conscious moment. > <...> > > R:>I can understand that life begins and ends with the passing of each moment, and it is indeed a core teaching; and that life only arises again with the arising of a new act of consciousness. > .... > S: So far, all agreed then.... > .... > R:> However, the conclusion that Ken draws from this, that *the entire process* of "repeated striking" of the object by vittaka [I think that's the right cetasika...? ] must take place within 'one moment' is not a correct conclusion. The process is stated to be cumulative and is passed on from one citta to the next. > .... > S: The point is that there is only ever the 'striking' now. What arises now is in many complex ways (as we've been discussing in another thread) and includes all past 'strikes', but there is only ever the citta now, accompanied by various cetasikas, experiencing their object. That is fine; I can understand that [to the extent that I can.] But what is important to me is that the present citta accesses "all past 'strikes'" as you say, in "complex ways." That is good enough for me! I just don't want infinite strikes to have to take place either simeoltaneously or sequentially all within one single moment. Yes, the whole accumulated result shows up in a single moment; that I can understand. > .... > R:> Although the whole world rises and falls in each moment, the thousands of processes and lifetimes of accumulations do not take place in each single moment. > ... > S: Well, in an ultimate sense they do - one single moment at a time. So now, if there is thinking about past accumulations, the reality is just the present moment, the present thinking, like the point where the chariot wheel touches the ground. Yes, I think there are two separate points: how things take place, and how they are seen. You are pointing out that we need to see what is happening now, and see that it is only there for us now. Only this moment is available at all. That is a profound and important truth. On the other hand, it is important, I think, to have a "correct concept" of how things develop and accumulate, even if we can only directly see the "part that is touching the ground" right now. To know that it is part of a whole wheel may also have some importance. > .... > >To think that is not just overly mystical, it is absurd; and I don't believe it is what is taught in the Abhidhamma or anywhere else. That is what happens when you mix up the overall reality of the moment with the specifics of different processes. > ... > S: I think the purpose of understanding that there is only the reality 'now' is for the purpose of developing more understanding of what is real and appears now. Good enough. I just don't want that to be a reason to have a false concept about something like vitakka. Those repeated beatings were really bugging me! :-( > Usually we're lost in thoughts about the past and future without any understanding of the present realities. I don't think there is any conflict with the understanding that there are processes and accumulations from aeons past. Yes, that is the balance that I am looking for. Not to get lost in concepts and thoughts that distract from what is happening now, but also not to dismiss the understanding of the processes and accumulations that are taking shape. > ... > R:> Does the contact with a sense-object, the processing by various namas, the thinking about it and the recollection of the object all take place in the same single moment? of course not. > ... > S: As you say, of course not. However, what we're interested in is what can be known now at the present moment, and thus developing more understanding of dhammas as anatta. Okay. > ... > R:> So each time "the world arises" for that single moment, the content of that moment is quite different from the one before it. The single moment contains all of reality as it stands for that one moment, but when the next moment arises, it accesses and builds on the moment before. > ... > S: Yes, I agree with the gist, though I'd put it a little differently - > 'Each time "the world arises" in a single moment, the consciousness and associated factors are quite different from the one before it. At that single moment of consciousness, there is no other consciousness and when the next moment of consciousness arises, it is conditioned by the previous one and many other past and present conditioning factors.' That sounds good. > So the understanding of the path all comes down to the understanding of the reality now appearing, whether that be visible object, sound, thinking or any other dhamma. > > Actually, I think we're pretty much agreed here. I understand your point and I think it's just a matter of emphasis when we say there's just the present moment. Yes, and I can understand why you want to emphasize the present moment - that's where the action is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98022 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 6:30 am Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- On Thu, 14/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > >> S: Yes, when vitakka 'takes a hit' it conditions all accompanying mental factors, including panna in this case. Similarly, panna conditions the vitakka and other mental factors. They all condition each other by sahajata paccaya (conascence condition. Also, each citta, with all its accompanying mental factors, conditions the subsequent citta and mental factors by anantara paccaya (proximity condition). Furthermore, the vitakka and panna now can condition vitakka and panna in the future, even aeons into the future, by pakatupanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition). So, in brief, the way that they condition each other and successive occurrences of each occurs according to many different complex conditions. > > > > So, I think you're on the right track, but the picture is a little more complex. ... > > R:> Thank you, that is exactly the level of detail that is right for me at the moment and it does make a lot of sense of the process. The fact that I seem to be able to partially understand this much is interesting, since it used to make no sense to me at all. Much thanks, > ... > S: It's helpful to study a little about the 24 conditions. Is there a nice list of them somewhere? > This way we can see that it's not as simple as just thinking in terms of the last citta conditioning the next one, because there are so many other factors at work. It all helps break down the idea of a Self that is in control and can will any particular states to arise. Good to see the mechanics at play, rather than taking credit for what takes place I guess. Hmn.... I can see how that would be helpful in eradicating the self-concept. > Please let me/us know if there is anything else to be clarified. As you say, in the beginning, none of it makes any sense to us, but gradually like with a jigsaw puzzle, the picture becomes a little clearer when the pieces start slotting into place. > > Thanks for the discussion and your kind words. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98023 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 23, 2009 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 23-mei-2009, om 8:30 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Is there a nice list of them somewhere? ------ N:I make you one, this is a quote from my "Conditions": Summarizing the twentyfour conditions, they are: root-condition (hetu-paccaya) object-condition (årammaùa-paccaya) predominance-condition (adhipati-paccaya) proximity-condition (anantara-paccaya) contiguity-condition (samanantara-paccaya) conascence-condition (sahajåta-paccaya) mutuality-condition (aññamañña-paccaya) dependence-condition (nissaya-paccaya) decisive support-condition (upanissaya-paccaya) prenascence-condition (purejåta-paccaya) postnascence-condition (pacchåjåta-paccaya) repetition-condition (åsevana-paccaya) kamma-condition (kamma-paccaya) vipåka-condition (vipåka-paccaya) nutriment-condition (åhåra-paccaya) faculty-condition (indriya-paccaya) jhåna-condition (jhåna-paccaya) path-condition (magga-paccaya) association-condition (sampayutta-paccaya) dissociation-condition (vippayutta-paccaya) presence-condition (atthi-paccaya) absence-condition (natthi-paccaya) disappearance-condition (vigata-paccaya) non-disappearance-condition (avigata-paccaya) The Buddha taught how every reality which arises is dependent on conditions. These conditions are not abstractions, they operate now, in our daily life. What we take for our mind and our body are mere elements which arise because of their appropriate conditions and are devoid of self. We should consider the conditions for the bodily phenomena which arise and fall away all the time. --------- Nina. #98024 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 23, 2009 10:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/23/2009 10:29:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Rob Ep, Op 23-mei-2009, om 8:30 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Is there a nice list of them somewhere? ------ N:I make you one, this is a quote from my "Conditions": Summarizing the twentyfour conditions, they are: root-condition (hetu-paccaya) object-condition (årammaùa-paccaya) ============================= To test my understanding, I provide description of these first two, as I understand them: 1) Root condition: Every defiled mind state is "rooted in," i.e., is dominated and characterized by, one of three mental characteristics: ignorance, craving, and aversion. I say "dominated by" and not "characterized solely by," because when craving or aversion is present, so is ignorance present even if not dominant. The relation between the root condition and the mind state of "being the root of" is a so-called conditional relation. 2) Object condition: This is the condition of a phenomenon, whether paramattha dhamma or concept, being the object of consciousness in the current mind state. The relation of "being the object of" that holds between the object and the current mind state is a conditional relation. Is this about right, Nina? With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98025 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 23, 2009 10:17 pm Subject: The 4 Infinite States! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Development of Infinite All-Embracing Kindness! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and Friends: There are these four infinite mental states: The Bhikkhu pervades all beings with all-embracing friendliness... The Bhikkhu encompass all creatures with universal & endless pity... The Bhikkhu permeates all individuals with infinite and mutual joy... The Bhikkhu suffuses all living mortals with unlimited equanimity... First in one direction, then in the 2nd, then the 3rd, & finally the 4th , above, below, all around, in every location, unifying himself with all beings, he pervades the entire universe with a kind and all-embracing friendliness, with an all-encircling compassion & pity, with an all-enveloping mutual and altruistic joy, and with an all-encompassing imperturbable equanimity, fully utilizing a refined mind, made great, vast, profound, infinite, immeasurable, released from all hate, anger, irritation, opposition and stubbornness... Source: DN 33 Because of hate, overwhelmed and obsessed by hate, one lives while doing evil deeds, speaking wrong words, and thinking bad thoughts... Thus one neither really understands one's own welfare, nor the welfare of others, nor the welfare of both... If, however, this hate is overcome and subdued, then one lives while doing good deeds, speaking kind words, and thinking advantageous thoughts... Therefore one really knows, what is one's own welfare, for the welfare of others, & for the welfare of both one self & others... Source: AN 3:55 Infinitude: Liza Berzofsky. Oil on Aluminium. More on these 4 Infinite and Divine States (Appamañña Brahma-VihÄra): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/brahma_vihaara.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Buddha_on_Noble_Frienship.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Selfless_Friendship_is_Sweetest.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/All_Embracing_Kindness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Rejoicing_Bliss_is_Mudita.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Blazing_Friendliness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/United_in_Harmony.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Good_Friend.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Goodwill_Encore.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Blazing_ &_Bright.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Friendliness_Frees.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kalyanamitta.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Metta.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The 4 Infinite States! #98026 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:01 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (05) buddhatrue Hi Han (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: > It is difficult to accept that there are no other factors apart from the element of heat that contribute to the growth of trees and plants. It is not only in the book by Nina. All other books say the same thing. But what about the [sap] or the watery juice carrying chemical products from the roots to the branches through the bark? Does the sap not contain aahaaraja-kalaapas? If the sap contains aahaaraja-kalaapa, does the aahaaraja-kalaapa in the sap different from the aahaaraja-kalaapa that the humans consume? If there is no difference, can we not say that utu and aahaara contribute to the growth of trees and plants (and not just by utu)? > You just hit on the second thing I wanted to ask about from the Introduction. I don't understand how "temperature" could be the only cause for the manifestation of rupa outside of the body. I wonder if this "temperature" is quite literally the temperatures of hot and cold or if this "temperature" is supposed to mean something different. I think of temperature as a characteristic of rupa (as every material thing has a temperature) but I can't see by what mechanism it can be the cause of rupa. What is going on here? Additionally, if everything we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell is the result of our good or bad kamma, doesn't that mean that there is some sort of relationship between one's individual kamma and outside rupas? I don't get that either. Now, the issue of plants that you bring up is very confusing indeed! It does appear that plants grow and that they can feel sensations (i.e. venus fly trap) so I don't see how they could be the same as rocks for example. Metta, James #98027 From: han tun Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:05 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (06) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Introduction (last paragraph) -------------------- Rúpas perform their functions, no matter one dresses oneself, eats, digests one’s food, moves about, gesticulates, talks to others, in short, during all one’s activities. If we do not study rúpas we may not notice their characteristics that appear all the time in daily life. We shall continue to be deluded by the outward appearance of things instead of knowing realities as they are. We should remember that the rúpa which is the “earth- element†or solidity can appear as hardness or softness. Hardness impinges time and again on the bodysense, no matter what we are doing. When hardness appears it can be known as only a kind of rúpa, be it hardness of the body or hardness of an external object. In the ultimate sense it is only a kind of rúpa. The detailed study of nÃ¥ma and rúpa will help us to see that there isn’t anything that is “mine†or self. The goal of the study of the Abhidhamma is the development of wisdom leading to the eradication of all defilements. -------------------- The End of Introduction. Chapter 1: The Four Great Elements will start from next post. -------------------- with metta, Han #98028 From: han tun Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:25 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (05) hantun1 Dear James (Nina), > James: You just hit on the second thing I wanted to ask about from the Introduction. I don't understand how "temperature" could be the only cause for the manifestation of rupa outside of the body. I wonder if this "temperature" is quite literally the temperatures of hot and cold or if this "temperature" is supposed to mean something different. I think of temperature as a characteristic of rupa (as every material thing has a temperature) but I can't see by what mechanism it can be the cause of rupa. What is going on here? Han: I also have difficulty in understanding the ruupas of the outside world. -------------------- > James: Additionally, if everything we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell is the result of our good or bad kamma, doesn't that mean that there is some sort of relationship between one's individual kamma and outside rupas? I don't get that either. Han: Yes, this is also a good point to consider. I have no explanation. -------------------- > James: Now, the issue of plants that you bring up is very confusing indeed! It does appear that plants grow and that they can feel sensations (i.e. venus fly trap) so I don't see how they could be the same as rocks for example. Han: I brought up the issue of plants, because I read in the text: [What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rúpas and these originate from temperature.] I am not sure about the rocks and houses originating from temperature only. But I think it is more than temperature in the case of plants. That was why I took up the case of plants. Best regards, Han #98029 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 3:03 am Subject: Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97859) > ---------------------- > > I do not see the Buddha as attempting a definition of "self". There would be no point in defining something that is being rejected as not having any basis in reality. > > Well....why say that "this is not self, that is not self" rather than "self is illusory" which he never says. This has always mystified me. > ---------------------- The teachings say that any view of self is wrong view. Isn't this another way of putting your "self is illusory" proposition? > ---------------------- But he must have a reason for the program he does have. He says that which cannot be controlled, which changes and which is unsatisfying because of its changing and elusive nature, is anicca, not self. That is always his line of argument and he never states positively that self either exists or does not > ---------------------- A proposition stated in the form "self does not exist" may be seen as implying there is something that is the "self" in question, the subject of the statement. By talking in terms of "idea of self", any such implication is avoided. > ---------------------- > > I'm not in a position to comment on any of this, I'm afraid. As a matter of interest, what is your source for these views? > > They are not views for the most part, but reporting on those philosophies. They are common constructs in Hinduism. You want some specific sources? Patanjali's yoga sutra is a good one for some; then there are various Vedantic sutras and some interesting other sutras I have come across over the years - the Avadhut Sutra, the Siva Sutras, etc. And the modern writings of Advaita Vedanta masters such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta. The idea that the standpoint of wisdom is separated from apparent reality, and observes arising phenomena with detachment, is quite common. > ---------------------- The wrong view of self is not limited to the views expressed in philosophical or religious teachings. In fact, in a sense, wrong view of self is independent of the views expressed in philosophical or religious teachings, in that it refers to the way things are actually (but wrongly) perceived to be, rather than to how things are intellectually 'believed' to be. > ---------------------- > > As I said, I don't think a definition is being proposed or assumed. I would say the Buddha is pointing out that only something that is not subject to disappearance can be a refuge in the true sense. > > And that is only nibbana, nothing else. While Buddha refutes eternalism or a permanent soul or Self, Nibbana is both eternal and unchanging is it not? > ---------------------- I'm not sure about nibbana being "eternal and unchanging". I'd have to check that. > ---------------------- It always winds up somewhere... > ---------------------- Not sure of your meaning here. > ---------------------- > I would agree. But he emphasizes that which bears the three marks as being not-self; that is the central theme of anicca I think. > ---------------------- One of the 3 marks is the mark of not-self, and another is the mark of anicca. Jon #98030 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 3:07 am Subject: Re: Characteristics vs. (observed) behaviour (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97862) > ---------------------- > > This distinction -- direct, rather than deduced, recognition -- is an important one. It goes a long way towards answering some of the questions you've been raising. > > I think I will focus on this point out of the confusion of that last exchange. This is pretty clear and I am starting to see the picture of different levels of panna seeing the characteristics more or less directly as it increases. Thanks. > ---------------------- Yes, I think this point – is an important one. It may help to narrow the gap between us quite a lot. Jon #98031 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 3:22 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Robert E (97860) > ---------------------- > > There are different kinds of dukkha discussed in the teachings. The dukkha that is the characteristic of conditioned dhammas has nothing to do with conventional ideas of pain and suffering. > > Are you ever going to enlighten me about what the unconventional definition of dukkha is? And how it is different, or are you just going to leave me in ignorance? > ---------------------- Sorry about that, but it comes up so frequently here that I assumed you'd have picked it up by now. See for example this recent post of Sarah's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/97467 Quoting from that post: S: As you know, there are 3 kinds of dukkha: i) "dukkha dukkha", or what we usually think of as suffering or unpleasantness (mental and bodily), associated with unpleasant feeling. ii) "vipari.naama dukkha" or the dukkha of change. This is what you point to in your last sentence, when even the pleasant feeling passes. iii) "sankhaara dukkha" or the dukkha pertaining to all conditioned dhammas. This is dukkha in the ultimate sense and which dukkha as one of the ti-lakkhana refers to. More in UP under "Dukkha5- 3 kinds" > ---------------------- > > Yes, this describes dukkha of that kind/those kinds, but not the characteristic of dukkha. > > Which is.....? > C'mon, Jon, help a guy out! > ---------------------- Sorry, sorry. See above, and also the Samohavinodani passage re-quoted yesterday. > ---------------------- > > As mentioned already in an earlier part of my reply to your post, there is change within a single moment that is perceptible to developed panna. > > How exactly does that work? How does change occur in a single moment? > ---------------------- As far as I know, there is no explanation given in the texts as to *how* change occurs. What is the significance of this knowledge to the development of the path, as you see it? > ---------------------- > > Sorry, but I can't really add anything to what I've said already in the context of the characteristic of anicca. > > You haven't said anything descriptive of it so far; only made the claim. Are you telling me that it is simply asserted and nowhere described? > ---------------------- I think I've addressed this question in a post sent yesterday. Please feel free to raise again if you think not. > ---------------------- > So to investigate and realize is not direct knowledge? You mean there is a whole other process that is not described beyond this? > I think she was indeed describing the process of how direct knowledge is gained. > ---------------------- Yes I would agree that the realization by direct experience that dhammas are "only an element" would be or would involve an understanding of the characteristic of anatta. (I did not mean to suggest otherwise – my comments last time were on a slightly different point, but never mind now.) > ---------------------- > I'm still looking for an explanation of how a lack of self can be a discernible positive characteristic all by itself without comparing it to the false concept of having a self. So far: I've gotten nothing along these lines, just the naked assertion that it is so because it must be so. > ---------------------- I would not see the realization by direct experience that dhammas are "only an element" (discussed just above) as requiring any comparison to a false concept of having self. > ---------------------- > yes, but what does that mean, other than what I have just described? Does it mean something more? Do you have a clear concept of what is referenced when you say that part of its "just this" is "not-self?" > ---------------------- The only concept I have is what I've explained so far in our exchanges ;-)) > ---------------------- > Maybe you don't question it on that minute a level, but I am asking what it actually is, so that I can have a clear understanding at least intellectually. > ---------------------- Yes, I don't feel that questioning it to the level that you do is likely to be of any benefit. > ---------------------- > So then, as a concept, what do you think it is? How does something that is a lack of self appear when you see it? Anyone report on this in the commentaries? > ---------------------- No reports in the texts that I'm aware of (except in the Thera- and Their-gatha). But such reports are unlikely to be of any value to us. What we need to know is how they got there ;-)) Jon #98032 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 5:45 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > I wonder if, one day, we could ask why this is so important to you. The truth is important to me. Why > are you so determined to deny the inherency aspect of anatta - even > though to do so means to go against the Theravada texts (to deny their > authority)? That is your opinion. You have not shown that to my satisfaction. I guess it's nice to feel smug about your own views. What I am doing is questioning according to my sense of truth. If that seems strange or unnecessary to you, sorry about that! :-) It must be very important to you. Yes, as Buddha advised, I am trying to discover the truth for myself, rather than taking things on "authority" as you advised, which the Buddha advised against! He did say to trust teachers who have proven their merit, but he did not ever say to stop investigating until you understood what the real truth was to your own satisfaction. So I think you're missing a step there! > One other day, perhaps! :-) Perhaps one day you shall discover something new as well! :-) > -------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > I think the same can be said for anicca dukkha and anatta: an > > enlightened person can describe them from his own direct experience. > > (Although unenlightened people won't necessarily know what he's > talking > > about!) > > R: > Well, that's my point - you can't say something is describeable and > makes sense > and then say that there's no understandable description of it to > demonstrate > that. > -------------------- > > That is not what I am saying. The entire Dhamma is a description of > conditioned dhammas. Some people may need to hear only a few words of > description (as in the case of Sariputta) while others will need long, > elaborate descriptions repeated many times and over many future > lifetimes. Well, I could cite the entire U.S. Constitution as the explanation for why a particular law is constitutional, but actually that would not be an acceptable proof of anything. If you want to cite the whole Dhamma you are actually not saying anything. If you can cite a specific statement to support your view, that is significant. Otherwise, you just once again saying, "My interpretation is right and since it is, there's no need to investigate!" > ----------------------- > R: > <. . .> I'll tell you what: I'll settle for a description by an > arahat claiming that what you say is the case, even if I don't > understand the statement. I don't think such a statement even exists, > but if it does, I'd like to see it. If no such statement exists, then > the proposition that such is the case is also nonsense, just > speculation. > ---------------------- > > We've discussed this already. It is a matter of understanding: you give > quotes in support of your understanding, and I give the exact same > quotes in support of my understanding. So give a quote. That's what I just asked for. If not, you are just confirming that "no such statement exists." > -------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > BTW, I'd like to make clear again that I am not trying to tie > > conventional science in with the Dhamma. I am just looking for some > > similes to help explain how (according to my understanding) dhammas > can > > have inherent characteristics. > > R: > My point is that just as the analogous situation makes sense, the > idea that > anatta is a definite characteristic also has to make sense. I don't have > to > understand it, but I can still see that at least it is claimed to be > such by > someone who has the authority to say so. BTW, I agree 100% that anatta > is a > characteristic of all dhammas. I just don't think that means that anatta > is > something other than 'lack of selfhood.' > ---------------------------- > > Yes, I know what you are saying, and I hope to convince you that you are > mistaken. It is an extremely important point. > > According to your understanding, people and trees (for example) are > anatta. But that is not what the Buddha taught! Only dhammas bear the > anatta characteristic. This is where the rubber meets the road, and where we will fundamentally disagree. You seem to believe in two separate worlds, the world of conventional objects and the world of "real dhammas." In other words, there is no junction between ordinary objects as perceived and "paramatha dhammas." I think this is so fundamentally wrong that chances are the discussion will prove impossible after we both clock in on this point. I believe your view of this is an example of Platonic idealism, in which the "ordinary experienced world" has nothing in common with the dimension of "ideal forms." I'm not a fan of Plato, and I don't believe in such a view. But I will wait until further down to make my case more specifically... ... > -------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > Mass is <. . .> is an inherent characteristic of matter. > > > > > R: > It is also measureable in terms of an objective, defineable > formula. And by the > way, the definition you gave is also a concrete explanation of what it > does and > how it works, at least in one aspect. Let's hear something along those > lines > about anatta. > -------------------- > > OK, to loosely quote from the Anattalakkhana Sutta, 'Because citta > (consciousness) is anatta it is not possible to say 'Let my > consciousness stay the way it is.' I think that is pretty loose, because I believe that the Buddha's argument proceeds in the opposite direction. He never starts with anatta. He says "Because it is not possible to say 'Let my consciousness stay the way it is" it is not worthy of being seen as part of self, and is therefore anatta. > That's really quite extraordinary, isn't it? If it wasn't for anatta (as > taught only by the Buddha) no one could make such an extraordinary > statement. Anatta is the conclusion not the premise. That means that anatta comes from observation on the ground of the temporary and painful nature of the changing reality of samsara, not the other way around. > The consciousness you and I conventionally know certainly > *can* stay the way it is. No it does not. This is absolutely fundamentally wrong. Our ordinary consciousness changes completely from moment to moment. There are not two realities, one that changes and one that does not. The nature of delusion is precisely that we *falsely* assume that conventional consciousness does not change based on false concepts and interpretations, while in fact there are *only* dhammas taking place - the real dhammas, not conventional ones, which don't exist. Conventional objects are not real, they are conceptually based and based on delusion, so the idea that they "don't change" is a falsehood. This separation between conventional reality and dhammas is a major stumbling block. You can never perceive the "paramatha" world while seeing the ordinary world as an impenetrable one, separate from dhammas. At least for a period of time. That is why > wecan say, for example, "I have been happy all day," or, "she grieved > for a year." We say this based on akusala concepts that are based in delusion. WE say it, but it is not true; no such reality exists. This is wrong. No one is happy all day, we have a variety of dhammas arising from moment to moment and they are all different. No one grieves for a year, that is a concept that selects only certain moments and conceptualizes them as a delusional whole. Similarly, with regard to the body, we can say, "I have > been sitting in this chair for two minutes." Also merely a concept. The "paramatha dhammas" do not exist somewhere else. They are the actuality of what "sitting in the chair" consists of; only that sitting is a concept and chair is a concept, and what we are actually experiencing is hardness, movement, etc. > And all of that is true. No it is *not* true. This is a delusory statement based on false interpretation of experience. I am shocked that you can say this. The mental and physical things in the > conventionally known world really do last. No they do not. This is the same as saying "delusion is reality." It would be ludicrous to > suggest they didn't. It is not ludicrous for anyone who believes in the Dhamma. I am surprised that you don't see this. It is only ludicrous from the same conventional thinking that is based in unreal concepts. And the Buddha didn't suggest it: his teaching was > only about dhammas (absolute realities). This is *not* what he said. You are misinterpreting his very words. Let's take a look at a statement that cannot be interpreted any other way than contradicting what you just wrote, from the same sutta on the nature of anatta, his second after awakening: "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'" "ANY form, blatant or subtle; common or sublime." How can this be interpreted any other way than the Buddha saying that both conventional and absolute reality are to be seen as anatta? Maybe the higher discernment of dhammas is more direct, but that does not mean that conventional objects cannot be understood as anatta. That would make the teaching only for stream-enterers, and I don't believe that. Do you? The truth is, that for most people, not able to see for thousands of lifetimes, any single dhammas up close, but only in contact with conventional objects and concepts, the Dhamma teaches them quite plainly that the conventional objects and ideas and attachments that they cherish are temporary and cannot give the satisfaction and security they crave; that it is better to let them go than to cling and crave. That is the teaching, and it is not dependent on viewing paramatha dhammas up close until the final stages of becoming an arahat. The teachings do apply to ordinary people and to ordinary experiences. Isn't that K. Sujin's teaching? That the experiences of ordinary conventional life as they arise contain all the dhammas one needs to develop panna? So what you say contradicts this. > Dhammas, and only dhammas, bear the anatta characteristic. Sentient > beings (and other concepts) have nothing to do with it. That is ridiculous. Buddha said that the teaching is for "all sentient beings." And it is all the properties of sentience, which are none other than all the rupas and namas, that are the objects of discernment. It is only with > respect to dhammas that we cannot say "let this remain the way it is" or > "let this be some other way." I really think you have a serious problem in understanding this. There is nothing else but dhammas. Your idea that there *is* a conventional reality, or that there *are* conventional objects is a delusion. Just because you see a mirage doesn't make it real. > --------------------------------- > R: > I'll bet any positive statement about anatta has to do with the > fact that things do not have a self, or are mistakenly taken for self. > That's > what anatta is about; it's not a secret of the arahats. Buddha > advertised it > constantly in his talks, which we call "suttas." > ---------------------------------- > > The suttas were about conditioned dhammas: their existence, their cause, > their cessation and the way leading to their cessation. They were not > about a way leading to the cessation of people and trees. The teaching is a tool to discern what people and trees really are. It has nothing to do with either making them cease or not cease. The path is about knowing and seeing. No one makes *dhammas* cease either. We just stop clinging to them when we see their true characteristics. If they finally do come to cessation you are not left with people and trees - they are all gone. Do you think they will still be there when dhammas cease to arise? So yes, when dhammas cease, so do the people and trees. Sorry! You don't get to keep them. The conventional world does disappear when dhammas no longer arise. There isn't anything else. > ------------------ > > R: > Buddha defined the "not-self characteristic" just as clearly as you > and I > defined density above, in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, and this is what he > said: > > ""So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or > presently > arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether > inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding > how it > is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not > myself.'" > ---------------- > > (There's another example of what I was saying: we give the same quotes > in support of different understandings.) But you don't share your counter-interpretation. How can you interpret it the way you do? Please explain how that works. > > ----------------------- > R: > "This is not myself" is how Buddha describes the Right > Understanding of the > not-self characteristic. > ----------------------- > > Yes, that is how he described it. And he described it from direct > experience. Otherwise, his teaching would have been hypothetical. What does that have to do with it? He experienced it and communicated it to us. So we can understand it. Pariyatti anyone? > ----------------------------- > R: > The characteristic that all dhammas have that we call > anatta is that with right understanding the arahat recognizes that all > things > are *not his self.* > ------------------------------ > > The arahant directly knows anatta. As a consequence, he is able to > describe it. I don't get your point. You are not dealing with what the statement says, just stating the obvious. > ---------------------------------------------- > R: > That is anatta in the Buddha's own nutshell. The rest of > the sutta follows this analysis as well. So where is the confusion? That > is > what this characteristic consists of, according to the Boss. > > The purpose of perceiving the not-self characteristic is not to see a > secret > thingy, but to remove clinging: > ----------------------------------------------- > > No: as with all aspects of satipatthana, this is a matter of direct > knowing. What about my point above? Direct knowing of what??? > Can you see how your argument is the thin end of the wedge? If we were > to deny the inherent nature of anatta we would also deny other inherent > natures taught in the suttas. We would end up denying all of absolute > existence. Paramattha dhammas would be seen as mere theoretical models. Well they are to you. Have you ever seen one? Pariyatti is just right concept, so yes, paramatha dhammas are 'mere theoretical models' until you experience them. Meanwhile, you are putting the cart before the horse. You think that your belief in paramatha dhammas justifies your interpretation of the suttas as only applying to them. Instead of working from experience to knowledge, you work from theory as a way to interpret your experience. It is not the method taught by the Buddha. Pariyatti is there to inform practice. Once you understand the teaching, you are to observe its action in life yourself. Even in Abhidhamma, the 'arising of everyday dhammas' without any control is the method of discernment, not trusting that anatta is present based on theory. > It does happen! There have been dozens of DSG members over the years who > have tried to tell us that paramattha dhammas were just theoretical > models - invented for the purpose of inducing detachment and > renunciation. Whether they are mere theory or eventually to be experienced, they are only theory to you right now, based on belief and faith. How about looking at that and see that your belief and faith and concepts of anatta are all namas? At least then you would be experiencing pariyatti in the actual moment, instead of thinking about what the arahats know and not looking at the nature of your own knowing. People talk up a storm about pariyatti, but when it comes down to it they don't always want to thoroughly investigate the basic concepts of the Dhamma, even on the theoretical level. It is easy to say "well I believe in these realities" but it is more difficult to engage them and prove them out in one's own life and see what can actually be discerned. > That would mean that detachment and renunciation (the way leading to the > cessation of dukkha) were themselves just theoretical models. And so the > way out would not really exist at all! No, it would not mean that. It would mean that one's own understanding may be filled with delusion, and to fail to consider that is to remain stuck in delusion without ever looking for the truth. To accept one's own concept without further and continuing investigation and just go by the mere words of the teachings and say 'this is true' is not the path. > -------------------------- > R: > "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees > thus, he finds > estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds > estrangement in > perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds > estrangement in > consciousness. > > "When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of > passion, he > is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. > He > understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what > can be > done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'" > > ---------------------------- > > My thoughts exactly! :-) Yes, and mine too, and they are only thoughts unless understood and applied. > > ---------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > In the satipatthana-known world, phenomena have anicca dukkha > and > > anatta. That's the Dhamma! :-) > > R: > And what does that mean? That's the question. Buddha lays it out. > Here is > anicca and anatta from the same sutta, explained perfectly well without > any > confusion. Even a non-arahat can understand it: > > "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" > — > "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful > or > pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is > impermanent, what is > painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, > this is > I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir." > > The formula is very simple: Form [feeling, perception, etc.] is > impermanent; > that which is impermanent is painful; that which is painful is not to be > regarded as one's self. > ----------------------------------- > > Beautiful and inspiring! As I understand that sutta the monks to whom > the Buddha was talking were practising satipatthana. When asked how they > regarded any nama or rupa they were able to answer truthfully - from > their own direct experience - that it was exactly how the Buddha had > described it. Yes, well that is lovely for them. What about you? I ask you about spewcific quotes and you talk to me about some other people who were practicing satipatthana. Truthfully, that is beside the point. We should engage with the teachings, not stories about them from the past. And we shouldn't use the knowledge of the 'old monks' of the suttas as an excuse not to develop our own understanding. > > (Without having seen a commentary I could be wrong, of course: maybe > that sutta was addressed to beginners like us who were just trying to > grasp the theory. (?)) Honestly, those kinds of distinctions when constantly repeated become excuses for not listening to what is being said and understanding it oneself. All the teachings are for *you,* they are not for beginners of this or that. Who they were delivered to at the beginning is informative, but does not conclude the issue of what we must do with the teachings, which is to understand and apply them. > --------------------- > <. . .> > R: > The Buddha says very definite things about what anatta > anicca and dukkha are. You do not. Do you accept the statements I have > quoted > from the Buddha, or do you think he was talking in a secret code that we > can't > understand? > > ---------------------- > > It wasn't meant to be a secret code, but the Dhamma is nonetheless very > difficult. It does not relate to anything already known by uninstructed > worldlings. Well then we may as well just watch tv I guess. Why study the Dhamma at all? It is not difficult to understand the plain words of the Buddha and discuss them and gain further knowledge. To say 'it is so difficult and other-worldly" becomes an excuse to do nothing. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #98033 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 6:43 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends Bhante: When one is cycling normally what happens? There is attachment, there is aversion, there is ignorance. Because that is what there is now and that is what there is time and again. Day in, day out. It does not stop when you get on your bicycle. It keeps going, attachment, aversion and ignorance. Sometimes there can be a moment of awareness which is aware of whatever appears through any doorway, no choosing. Not concentrating on the bodysense in order to be aware of movement. Not concentrating through the eyes in order to be aware of visible object. Not concentrating on any particular doorway, looking for something or trying to direct awareness but just letting awareness arise naturally. We should realize that awareness only arises by conditions and that you can't make it happen here or there for a long time. You can't keep it somewhere. The whole point of developing awareness is to see that nothing can be kept anywhere. So, how can you keep awareness? It is just as much anatta ,not self, as anything else. If you try to keep awareness, concentrating on a particular spot of the body you are certainly not being aware, but there is a self who is trying hard to make something the way he wants it to be. Can you be aware now? Yes, if you want to develop insight you have to be aware now. We have no other opportunity. And what will you be aware of? Sitting is not a reality. But there is seeing now. Why go past the eye. So we see. Seeing is not sitting, seeing sees. And there is visible object, which makes it possible for seeing to arise. So there is visible object to be aware of too. And how do you know you are sitting? Because you do not see what you call your body, in the position that you conventionally label 'sitting posture'. You also have experiences of hardness here and there, there are tangible objects being experienced in different places where there is bodysense. Then, when you think about all that information, you have the idea of a person or someone as a 'whole'. That is what you call 'sitting'. But the whole purpose of the Buddha's teachings is to destroy that wrong idea of a 'whole' through seeing the truth of the different realities. They are not a 'whole'. Seeing is not sitting. The experience of hardness at this point does not sit. The experience of coolness at that point does not sit. The coolness itself does not sit. 'Sitting' is a conventional idea which enables us to communicate. It is not a reality. Wisdom, panna, gets beyond words, beyond thinking about states, positions, ideas about a self or a whole, and it sees reality without thinking. Because the function of panna is not thinking, its function is to see clearly, to penetrate that which we mistake for 'sitting'. We mistakenly think that a person is sitting. We have the wrong idea of 'I am sitting'. Anatta is the core of the Buddha's teaching, not atta, self. -------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98034 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) nilovg Dear Han and James, thanks for your questions which show your interest. Sorry for the delay, I am cooking so much for my brother and family, who will come to luncheon. Op 24-mei-2009, om 3:25 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > James: You just hit on the second thing I wanted to ask about from > the Introduction. I don't understand how "temperature" could be the > only cause for the manifestation of rupa outside of the body. I > wonder if this "temperature" is quite literally the temperatures of > hot and cold or if this "temperature" is supposed to mean something > different. I think of temperature as a characteristic of rupa (as > every material thing has a temperature) but I can't see by what > mechanism it can be the cause of rupa. What is going on here? > > Han: I also have difficulty in understanding the ruupas of the > outside world. >> Han: I brought up the issue of plants, because I read in the text: >> [What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rúpas and these >> originate from temperature.] I am not sure about the rocks and >> houses originating from temperature only. But I think it is more >> than temperature in the case of plants. That was why I took up the >> case of plants. > > -------------------- > N: It is not wrong to say that we are giving food to plants in the > form of fertilizer, and that there are chemical reactions when they > take this 'food'. Here we are in the world of convention. > Figuratively we can say that plants eat food. However, plants have no citta (I know some people will deny this), they do not perform good and bad deeds which will bring result. They do not have the rupa lifefactor that is produced only by kamma, as in the case of living beings. Living beings take food made into morsels, and digest this. Then the outward nutrition of food pervades the body and the inward nutrition (one of the eight inseparable rupas present in each unit of rupa) can produce new rupas. The rupas of what we call plant cannot be produced by kamma, citta and food, they do not eat food and digest it like living beings do, as explained above. Then the only factor left is the fourth factor: the element of heat. But this does not mean that we have to deny the other factors like chemical reactions brought about by fertilizer. There is no problem, but one can look at the facts from different angles: the conventional way and the way of ultimate realities. --------- > James: Now, the issue of plants that you bring up is very confusing > indeed! It does appear that plants grow and that they can feel > sensations (i.e. venus fly trap) so I don't see how they could be > the same as rocks for example. ------- N: Plants are different from rocks, nobody denies this. But actually they are constituted by different kinds of rupas and in different compositions. Each unit is fomed by the four great Elements and in addition, as said before, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. Plants have no citta and they do not feel. Your example of the fly trap is more like a chemical reaction. But I do not know an answer to every case that may happen. I would just like to know what can help me to become more detached from the idea of self and mine. To know everything about plants does not help me personally. --------- > > James: Additionally, if everything we see, hear, feel, taste, and > smell is the result of our good or bad kamma, doesn't that mean > that there is some sort of relationship between one's individual > kamma and outside rupas? I don't get that either. > > Han: Yes, this is also a good point to consider. I have no > explanation. > > -------------------- > N: This is a good point. Pleasant and unpleasant rupas like colour, > smell, arise and fall away and one person may smell an awful > stench, but another person who is also near may not experience it > at all. The person who has to experience an unpleasant object as > result of akusala kamma, is at the wrong place, at the wrong time, > as we say. Nothing happens by accident. Nina. #98035 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 23-mei-2009, om 16:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > To test my understanding, I provide description of these first two, as > I understand them: > > 1) Root condition: Every defiled mind state is "rooted in," i.e., is > dominated and characterized by, one of three mental characteristics: > ignorance, craving, and aversion. I say "dominated by" and not > "characterized > solely by," because when craving or aversion is present, so is > ignorance > present even if not dominant. The relation between the root > condition and the > mind state of "being the root of" is a so-called conditional relation. ------- N: I prefer 'rooted in' to :dominated by. Rooted in shows the firm foundation of the citta. Roots go so deep and how defilements have to be uprooted! The roots go so very deep, they are very stubborn, extremely hard to pull out. But wisdom can uproot them by knowing them thoroughly. Only the arahat has completely pulled them out. The citta with lobha is so firmly rooted in lobha and moha. Straight after seeing we cling already to visible object, even though it is not known yet what it is. These roots have to be known when they appear in daily life. -------- > 2) Object condition: This is the condition of a phenomenon, whether > paramattha dhamma or concept, being the object of consciousness in the > current mind state. The relation of "being the object of" that > holds between the > object and the current mind state is a conditional relation. > > Is this about right, Nina? ----- N: Yes. Citta could not arise without an object, it has to know an object. it is different from rupa that does not know anything. By attending to citta arising now there will be a clearer comprehension of the nature of citta that knows an object as being different from rupa. Nina. #98036 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 24, 2009 9:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/23/2009 11:04:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Robert E (97859) > ---------------------- > > I do not see the Buddha as attempting a definition of "self". There would be no point in defining something that is being rejected as not having any basis in reality. > > Well....why say that "this is not self, that is not self" rather than "self is illusory" which he never says. This has always mystified me. > ---------------------- The teachings say that any view of self is wrong view. Isn't this another way of putting your "self is illusory" proposition? > ---------------------- But he must have a reason for the program he does have. He says that which cannot be controlled, which changes and which is unsatisfying because of its changing and elusive nature, is anicca, not self. That is always his line of argument and he never states positively that self either exists or does not > ---------------------- A proposition stated in the form "self does not exist" may be seen as implying there is something that is the "self" in question, the subject of the statement. ---------------------------------------------------- No, Jon, only for persons who have problems in language or logic areas of the brain! When someone says "X doesn't exist," it means "There is no X." It does NOT mean that there exists an X that X doesn't exist!!! That is just plain contradiction! When someone says that unicorns don't exist, that does not mean that there are unicorns that don't exist! This simply uses a word/concept, 'unicorn' that people understand, and it denies it any actual referent. To put it more succinctly, it says that there ain't no such things. Of course, if people didn't understand what the word meant, that denial would be meaningless to them, and they might still believe that there are horses with single horns. Likewise, if people didn't know what 'self' meant to the Buddha, they might still believe in an eternal core of independent being within the aggregates, perhaps nibbana itself, and at the same time, think they accept the anatta teaching. Actually, I have run across one or two places where the Buddha outright denied the existence of self. But generally he pointed out that any-and-everything that might be taken for self is, in fact, not self, the purpose, I believe, being that this no,no, no,no, no, ... approach that denies selfhood to everything experienced eventually lights a light bulb in the student's mind. ---------------------------------------------------- By talking in terms of "idea of self", any such implication is avoided. > ---------------------- > > I'm not in a position to comment on any of this, I'm afraid. As a matter of interest, what is your source for these views? > > They are not views for the most part, but reporting on those philosophies. They are common constructs in Hinduism. You want some specific sources? Patanjali's yoga sutra is a good one for some; then there are various Vedantic sutras and some interesting other sutras I have come across over the years - the Avadhut Sutra, the Siva Sutras, etc. And the modern writings of Advaita Vedanta masters such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta. The idea that the standpoint of wisdom is separated from apparent reality, and observes arising phenomena with detachment, is quite common. > ---------------------- The wrong view of self is not limited to the views expressed in philosophical or religious teachings. In fact, in a sense, wrong view of self is independent of the views expressed in philosophical or religious teachings, in that it refers to the way things are actually (but wrongly) perceived to be, rather than to how things are intellectually 'believed' to be. > ---------------------- > > As I said, I don't think a definition is being proposed or assumed. I would say the Buddha is pointing out that only something that is not subject to disappearance can be a refuge in the true sense. > > And that is only nibbana, nothing else. While Buddha refutes eternalism or a permanent soul or Self, Nibbana is both eternal and unchanging is it not? > ---------------------- I'm not sure about nibbana being "eternal and unchanging". I'd have to check that. ----------------------------------------------- What is the alternative, Jon? ---------------------------------------------- > ---------------------- It always winds up somewhere... > ---------------------- Not sure of your meaning here. > ---------------------- > I would agree. But he emphasizes that which bears the three marks as being not-self; that is the central theme of anicca I think. > ---------------------- One of the 3 marks is the mark of not-self, and another is the mark of anicca. Jon ============================ With metta, Howard /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) #98037 From: han tun Date: Sun May 24, 2009 1:46 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (05) hantun1 Dear Nina (James), I like your explanations, especially on the following points. > Nina: Living beings take food made into morsels, and digest this. Then the outward nutrition of food pervades the body and the inward nutrition (one of the eight inseparable rupas present in each unit of rupa) can produce new rupas. The rupas of what we call plant cannot be produced by kamma, citta and food, they do not eat food and digest it like living beings do, as explained above. Then the only factor left is the fourth factor: the element of heat. But this does not mean that we have to deny the other factors like chemical reactions brought about by fertilizer. There is no problem, but one can look at the facts from different angles: the conventional way and the way of ultimate realities. > Nina: This is a good point. Pleasant and unpleasant rupas like colour, smell, arise and fall away and one person may smell an awful stench, but another person who is also near may not experience it at all. The person who has to experience an unpleasant object as result of akusala kamma, is at the wrong place, at the wrong time, as we say. Nothing happens by accident. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #98038 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 24, 2009 2:03 pm Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] nilovg Dear all, Mike has very good points, but he cannot post to dsg, only read. (Can Jon help him?) Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 24 mei 2009 5:49:27 GMT+02:00 > Aan: Nina Van Gorkom > Onderwerp: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] > > Hi Nina, > > I sent this to dsg, it was never posted. Please don't bother with > it if you don't have time. > > mike > > Van: Mike Nease > Datum: 20 mei 2009 21:40:14 GMT+02:00 > Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Onderwerp: Vicikiccha (was: Re: [dsg] Re: siila) > > > Hi Nina and Lukas (and All), > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >> N: The cetasika doubt is different from what we mean by doubt in >> conventional sense. It is doubt regarding paramattha dhammas. Doubt >> whether or not this is the right Path leading to the end of >> defilements. Or: is the present reality nama or rupa? > > Mike: From Abhidhammattha Sangaha > of Anuruddhacariya > > A Manual of Abhidhamma > > Edited in the original Pali Text with English Translation and > Explanatory Notes > by > Narada Maha Thera: > > 28. Vicikiccha - See Ch. 1, note 13[*]. > > Vicikiccha, as a Hindrance, does not mean doubts with regard to the > Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, etc., --------- N: this is his personal note and he did not make this clear. See my Cetasikas, Ch 20: We read in the Dhammasangani (1004) that there can be doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, the Discipline, the past or the future or both, the "Dependant Origination" (1 Book of Analysis, chapter 17, 915.). The Atthasalini (II, Book II, Part II, Chapter1, 354, 355) explains as to doubts about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, that one may doubt about the qualities of the Buddha or about the characteristic marks of his body (2 A Buddha has 32 bodily mark. See Dialogues of the Buddha III, no. 30.), that one may doubt whether there is attainment of enlightenment, whether there is nibbana, or whether there are people who can attain enlightenment. As to doubt about the past and the future, this doubt can concern the "khandhas", the "dhatu" (elements) and "ayatanas" (twelve bases in the past and in the future. ------------- > > Majjhima Nikaya commentary states - "it is so called because it is > incapable of deciding that it is as such." (Idam'ev'idanti > nicchetum asamatthabhavato'ti vicikiccha). > > [*]13. Vicikiccha- > > This is an ethic-religious term. Commentary gives two interpretations. > > (1.) Vici = vicinanto, seeking, inquiring; - kicch, to tire, to > strain, to be vexed. It is vexation due to perplexed thinking. > > (2.) Vi, devoid + cikiccha, remedy (of knowledge). It means that > which is devoid of the remedy of knowledge. > > Both these interpretations indicate a perplexed or undecided frame > of mind. Doubt, perplexity, skepticism, indecision are used as the > closest English equivalents. > > Reasoning or investigation for the sake of understanding the truth > is not discouraged in Buddhism. Nor is blind faith advocated in > Buddhism. > > [Vicihiccha is the inability to decide anything definitely that > it is as such. Buddhaghosa-Majjhima Nikaya Commentary.] > > Nina, if you have time could you explain a little about how the > above relates to your comments? ------- N: I quote more from my Cetasikas: When there is doubt one "wavers", one is not sure about realities. The Dhammasangani (425) describes doubt in different ways and states among others that it is "uncertainty of grasp", "stiffness of mind". The Atthasalini (II, 259, 260) in its explanation of this paragraph of the Dhammasangani states: ... "Fluctuation " is the inability to establish anything in one made, thus, "ls this state permanent, or is it impermanent?" Because of the inability to "comprehend" there is "uncertainty of grasp"…. As to "stiffness", the Atthasalini remarks that "mental rigidity' is the inability to come to a decision as to the object. We read: "stiffness is the meaning. For perplexity having arisen makes the mind stiff...." When there is doubt one wonders about realities: "Is it such or is it such?" one wonders, for example, whether a reality is permanent or impermanent, or whether the reality which appears now is nama or rupa. When there is doubt them is mental rigidity, there is not the wieldiness of mind which is necessary for the understanding of realities. Doubt is to be considered as a " danger for attainment"; when there is doubt it is impossible to apply oneself to mental development. Doubt is different from ignorance, moha, which does not know realities. But when there is doubt there is also moha which accompanies all akusala dhammas. When doubt accompanies the akusala citta, there cannot be determination (adhimokkha) which is "sure about the object", neither can there be "wish-to-do" (chanda) which "searches for the object" and wants it (1 see Chapter 9 and Chapter 12.). The proximate cause of doubt is "unwise attention" to the object which is experienced at that moment. We read in tie Gradual Sayings(Book of the Ones, Chapter II, 5) that the Buddha said to the monks: Monks. I know not of any other single thing of such power to cause the arising if doubt and wavering, it not already arisen; or, if arisen, to cause its more-becoming and increase, as unsystematic attention. In him who gives not systematic attention arises doubt and wavering, it not already arisen; or. if arisen, it is liable to more- becoming and increase. -------- N: Is there anything else you would like to discuss? ------- > >> ..."Abandon what is unskillful, monks. >> It is possible to abandon what is >> unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I >> would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' > > I'm trying to find this text (I believe it's from a translation > identified by the translator as > > AN 2.19 > Kusala Sutta > Skillful > > PTS: A i 58 (II,ii,9) ------- This is correct: AN Book of the Twos, Ch 2, §9. At the end, just before Ch III, The fool (bala). Abandon evil and cultivate the good is in this translation. ------ > > M:I'd like to check the translation because I think it's inaccurate > ('kusala' as 'skillful') but I can't seem to find the original text > in English, much less in Paa.li. I've searched the PTS editions by > Volume, Book, Part, Chapter and Paragraph to no avail; also the Sri > Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series by nipaata and vaggo--also no > luck. Can anyone tell me how to find this (or even how to search > for it online), especially in Paa.li, perhaps by nipaata and vaggo > in the Anguttara Nikaya? ----- N: Problem solved. > > Nina. #98039 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 5:08 pm Subject: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] szmicio Dear Mike and Nina, I like it. Doubt as nama, the reality. Not as conventional idea. I am really happy that I had occasion to hear this profound Dhamma. There is so much yoniso manasikara needed to understand dukkha and to relise what our life really is. I used to think about people and things. and actually I am doing it all the time. That's very natural to being involved in long stories with attachment. Can you say about object of ditthi? Can you say about object of moha? > Doubt is different from ignorance, moha, which does not know > realities. But when there is doubt there is also moha which > accompanies all akusala dhammas. When doubt accompanies the akusala > citta, there cannot be determination (adhimokkha) which is "sure > about the object", neither can there be "wish-to-do" (chanda) which > "searches for the object" and wants it (1 see Chapter 9 and Chapter > 12.). The proximate cause of doubt is "unwise attention" to the > object which is experienced at that moment. We read in tie Gradual > Sayings(Book of the Ones, Chapter II, 5) that the Buddha said to the L: I like this distinction between moha and ditthi. My best wishes Lukas #98040 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 24, 2009 2:42 pm Subject: Realizing Anatta and Awakening upasaka_howard Hi, all - There is the following clear teaching from MN 148 Chachakka Sutta: "Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' "One assumes about the ear... "One assumes about the nose... "One assumes about the tongue... "One assumes about the body... "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible. "Dependent on the ear & sounds... "Dependent on the nose & aromas... "Dependent on the tongue & flavors... "Dependent on the body & tactile sensations... "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible. "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible. "Dependent on the ear & sounds... "Dependent on the nose & aromas... "Dependent on the tongue & flavors... "Dependent on the body & tactile sensations... "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving. "He grows disenchanted with the ear... "He grows disenchanted with the nose... "He grows disenchanted with the tongue... "He grows disenchanted with the body... "He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" With metta, Howard Emptiness /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #98041 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 8:15 pm Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. Hope you have fun with the below: :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (With apologies to you and others for the delay in responding.) There is no problem with that; it gave me a chance to rest and shore up my strength! :-) > (97797) > > -------------- > > Well that is lovely, but you are coming from the idea of a general principle and I am trying to make some sense of what is being said. I have yet to hear a sensible explanation of how a "not-self" can be a positive characteristic. I can't get a specific explanation of why anyone thinks this is the case, except for the general type of assertion above, that it *must* be a positive attribute rather than something that is being said to not be there. > > -------------- > > I must protest! ;-)). In the passage from the Samohavinidani quoted by Scott in a related thread, the meaning was given as this: > "The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self. ... And how is that discerned? Normally Buddha seems to ask that one contemplate this inabilty to have power exercises over it, as well as its temporary and unsatisfying nature. As I see it, this characteristic is discerned by a citta in relation to a dhamma. How does a dhamma *contain* insusceptibility to control? It is only in relation to a nama that would wish to control it that this insusceptibility appears. So one must either fail to control it or contemplate this inability to control. In either case, the dhamma all by itself doesn't have this; it just is itself arising and falling. Lack of control is on the part of a controlling intention, is it not? How else does it appear? It is the failure to account for the actual meaning of what is said that frustrates me. When confronting the actual meaning of a definition 'around here' I often get a bunch of general feedback that "it must be a positive characteristic of a dhamma all by itself' because someone else said so. > > In a later post you seemed to find this description, and the descriptions of the other 2 characteristics, to be satisfactory > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/97453 > > > -------------- > But what is the original point of 'not self?' The point was never to assert that there was such a thing as a not-self. It was to refute the assertion that these things were atta or Atman. It was atta and Atman that came first and anatta came second. Anatta did not exist by itself as a 'characteristic' until the Hindu concepts of the temporary and eternal atta and Atman were outlined and the Buddha gave anatta as the refutation of these philosophies. > > -------------- > > As far as I'm aware, what you describe here as "the original point" of the "not-self" characteristic is not based on anything found in the texts. Well he spoke about eternalism and belief in a soul, self or eternal self of any kind being wrong view on many occasions, and anatta is the opposite view - the medicine for eternalism, or cherishing things as self. > On the contrary, in fact, the texts say that the teaching on the 3 characteristics is a teaching that is common to all Buddhas; this would mean it is independent of the thinking of the time. The belief in a soul, self or Divine Being are not beliefs of that time; they are beliefs of every time in human existence. All the Buddhas would be combatting the same tendencies of human beings to believe in eternalism or egoity. > To my understanding, the idea of "self" exists in multiple forms through all ages, regardless of the philosophies of the time. I was not at all trying to imply that Buddha's teaching was "local" to that time and place in India, but that it was specifically in relation to the ideas that human beings always cherish of having a self or soul or higher being. I mentioned the local Indian concepts because that was where those beliefs were represented in the Buddha's time, so he would be speaking to those beliefs, which he did. > The implication of what you say above seems to be that if the Buddha were teaching at a time when there was no religious/philosophical concept of the temporary and eternal atta and Atman he would not need to teach the characteristic of "not-self". I think that misses the point of what wrong view of self is. There is no such time, and there is no such thing as an unenlightened human that does not belief in self, soul or higher eternal being in one or another form. So that is not a problem. > > -------------- > So to then come along and say that 'anatta' is a real thing that has been a permanent characteristic that has always been part of a dhamma seems to be just a kind of imperative based on concept rather than either a logical or perceptual truth. > > -------------- > > I see nothing wrong with the idea that dhammas have characteristics that do not change over time. That's fine and dandy if you can just say what they are. If you cannot explain what the characteristic *is* at least with a decent definition then you can't say that it is a characteristic. You have to at least know what you are referring to in order to talk about something. Anatta has a clear meaning given by the Buddha which you and others seem to want to dismiss or deny in favor of some unspoken "higher" meaning that is undisclosed to mere mortals. That is my objection. I have even said that I *agree* that anatta *is* a characteristic of all dhammas; but I have added that what that characteristic *is* is the "lack of self or soul or center" and that they are "just exactly what they are." What the arahat, I would claim, would directly perceive that would show that the dhamma had 'no self' or anatta, would be the fact that it simply goes through its changes based on conditions, and that there is *nothing else causing them to behave the way they do.* This is an inherent characteristic, but it is a characteristic whose positive aspect is *just being what it is and nothing more.* If you think the positive aspect of "no-self" is something other than this then you have to be able to say what *your* definition of that positive characteristic is. Otherwise you are actually not saying anything, just invoking a general rule without understanding the specific instance you are talking about. In which case I have no basis for confidence that it is true, or even that you know it to be true, since you can't say *what* is true, other than "anatta is a positive characteristic of a dhamma." There's no explanation of what that means. I have given you plenty of definitions to challenge; you should give me at least one. I can say that "a fish is really a snake" and insist that someone smart told me so, but unless I can explain how that can be so, you have no basis to accept my statement. > > -------------- > > This mark of anatta is meant to point out the lack of self, not to create another kind of self: a permanent eternal thingy that arises with every nama and rupa. ... So, that is my view, and rather than dismiss it wholesale because "anatta must be a positive attribute," it would be more useful to somehow grapple with my assertions and refute them on the merits. That would be my overly optimistic hope anyway. > > -------------- > > I am mainly concerned with identifying the orthodox commentarial position, and I hope I have done that (you may not agree with it, of course). Yes, I would like to know what the heck it is, other than to say "it is true." I can say it is true that the official Christian position is that you go to Heaven when you die, but without an explanation of why or how it is merely an empty belief. > The problem with discussing between ourselves on 'the merits' is that, as you've pointed out in an earlier post, it's a case of the blind arguing with the blind, and our idea of the 'merits' is so skewed as to make any conclusion reached of little or no value. That's why I think that a starting point for us mere mortals should be to actually be able to explain what we ourselves *mean.* If you only make general statements and say "it's true because the arahats said so" without knowing what it means, it is a useless sort of thing. I have given what the Buddha said about anatta. If you have a different interpretation of what he meant, you should please say what that interpretation is and be specific. Whether you can perceive it directly or not is beside the point for us pariyatti seekers. A clear statement is what is necessary for us; not "we'll find out in nibbana," which is no different than "ours is not to reason why - we'll find out in Heaven." > Nevertheless, I have mentioned above why I would reject any hypothesis that the teaching on anatta was given in order to address certain views that were prevalent at the time, and that is my argument "on the merits". That is not enough for me, Jon. :-) I need to know what you think anatta *is,* if it is something other than "nonexistence of self," which is what the word actually means. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #98042 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (97814) > > ---------------------- > > A dhamma does not arise and fall away within one moment; it takes a number of moments; > > ---------------------- Nama takes one moment; rupa lasts for 15 or 17 moments and corresponds to 15 or 17 cittas respectively: "...rúpa lasts not longer than seventeen moments of citta. The following summary shows the duration of an object which is rúpa, lasting as long as seventeen moments of citta. "When a rúpa arises and impinges on a sense-base, the first moment of citta which arises and falls away is the bhavanga-citta which is called past bhavanga, atíta-bhavanga. The vibrating bhavanga, bhavanga calana, is the second moment of citta. The arrest bhavanga, bhavangupaccheda, is the third moment of citta. The five-sense-door adverting-consciousness is the fourth moment of citta. One of the sense-cognitions is the fifth moment of citta. The receiving-consciousness is the sixth moment of citta. The investigating-consciousness is the seventh moment of citta. The determining-consciousness is the eighth moment of citta The first javana-citta is the ninth moment of citta. | The second javana-citta is the tenth moment of citta. | The third javana-citta is the eleventh moment of citta. | The fourth javana-citta is the twelfth moment of citta. |seven The fifth javana-citta is the thirteenth moment of citta. | javana- The sixth javana-citta is the fourteenth moment of citta. |cittas The seventh javana-citta is the fifteenth moment of citta. | From the moment of atíta bhavanga when the rúpa which is object arose, fifteen moments have passed when the seventh javana-citta has fallen away. Thus, there are still two more moments left before the rúpa will fall away, since, in comparison with the duration of nåma, rúpa lasts seventeen times longer." [[Source: http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para5.htm Chapter 11: The Duration of different Processes]] > To my understanding of the teachings, dhammas arise and fall away within a single, extremely brief moment. Nevertheless, each dhamma is said to have, within that moment, an arising, persisting and ceasing aspect. Well, I would like to see a description of this if you have a citation. That is possible for cittas - but rupas last longer. If you can get a page citation for me from KS's "Survey" or Nina's rupas or cetasikas I will look it up. > > ---------------------- > so how can panna see the arising and falling away in a single moment? This seems to be self-contradictory. > > ---------------------- > > The arising, persisting and ceasing aspect within the single moment of a dhammas "being" can be known to (highly developed) panna. Such panna would see the dhamma's arising (from not having been), and it's falling away (to no longer being). Well if that somehow takes place within a single moment, then a citta could see a concomitant nama rising and falling away in that same moment, but it can't see another citta since there is only one at a time, and it can't see itself, so it is still close to impossible for this to take place. What panna sees, as I understand it, is over a succession of cittas it can see directly the rising, persisting and falling away of a *rupa,* since this takes 15 or 17 moments of cittas, and panna can accumulate this knowledge over time with the help of vittaka and whatever else. Maybe someone can clear this up. > > ---------------------- > > It makes more sense to say that over the course of several cittas, panna re-arising and accumulating, being passed from one citta to the next, will pass on and note the phases of arising and falling away over several moments, in order to accumulate and understand the arising and falling away process. There is no reason why it all has to take place in a single moment. I think it is made clear that these processes are cumulative and since cittas have no problem passing on information from one citta to the next, through bhavanga cittas and other mechanisms, there is no reason why this should trouble anyone. > > ---------------------- > > As I said before, the knowledge gained by panna is cumulative, so much of what you say here would hold true. OMG, I think we agree on something. I need a drink! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98043 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 8:43 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (97853) > > ---------------------- > > > It is description, but it is by no means redundant of what will take place. It was spoken for the benefit of those among the listeners, and in later generations, who were capable of applying what they heard. So it is both descriptive and instructive. > > > > Well I thought it was a point of contention that *anything* in the description of mindfulness practice could be instructive. If it can be an instruction it means that it can be practiced. > > ---------------------- > > A teaching can be instructive without being a practice to be followed. I guess I'm going to have to ask you what your definition of "instruct" is. To me it means to tell someone what to do and how to do it. I guess something can be "informative" without being instructive, if that's what you mean. > > ---------------------- > If the only point is that one must have the prior training to engage successfully in such a practice, then there is not much contention except how one attains such prior training. [I think some prior practice may be involved.] > > ---------------------- > > Some passages in the suttas are applicable to all, others to particular classes of individuals. There's nothing surprising about that, surely. No, the point at issue is why it would be given if it were only for those who already knew it, and if not, what the purpose is, other than to instruct people how to do it correctly. > Where a passage is particularly applicable to those who have attained an advanced level of samatha and/or vipassana, the passage should not be read as setting out a path for all and sundry. I don't think we can determine who something might or might not apply to; although many appear to want to try to make such determinations. But in any case, if it is setting out a path for *anyone* it is still setting out a path. So can that be done at all or not? > > ---------------------- > > > My point was, however, that it is not a statement of doctrine proclaiming a specific relationship between anapanasati and enlightenment. > > > > I do not understand this. Are you saying there is no relationship between anapanasati and enlightenment, even for those who have the capacity to do it successfully? > > ---------------------- > > A person may be highly skilled in anapanasati but not in satipatthana. Samatha and vipassana involve different "strains" of panna. But the question is whether there is a relation or not. If there is no relation, then why teach anapanasati to these people? If there is a relation, then it *is* being taught to them, in which case it is an instruction. So which is it? > Likewise, a person may be highly developed in satipatthana but not in samatha leading to mundane jhana. Well, then let him or her practice satipatthana. I don't see the problem. > > > ---------------------- > > > This description is one of 14 ways mentioned in the sutta in which mindfulness of the body may be developed. > > > > May we have the capacity to engage them! > > ---------------------- > > And may we remember that the (only) time for development is now! Yes, and let's do something about it other than say we can't do it! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #98044 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 8:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 23-mei-2009, om 8:30 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > > > Is there a nice list of them somewhere? > ------ > N:I make you one, this is a quote from my "Conditions": > Summarizing the twentyfour conditions, they are: > > root-condition (hetu-paccaya) > object-condition (årammaùa-paccaya) > predominance-condition (adhipati-paccaya) > proximity-condition (anantara-paccaya) > contiguity-condition (samanantara-paccaya) > conascence-condition (sahajåta-paccaya) > mutuality-condition (aññamañña-paccaya) > dependence-condition (nissaya-paccaya) > decisive support-condition (upanissaya-paccaya) > prenascence-condition (purejåta-paccaya) > postnascence-condition (pacchåjåta-paccaya) > repetition-condition (åsevana-paccaya) > kamma-condition (kamma-paccaya) > vipåka-condition (vipåka-paccaya) > nutriment-condition (åhåra-paccaya) > faculty-condition (indriya-paccaya) > jhåna-condition (jhåna-paccaya) > path-condition (magga-paccaya) > association-condition (sampayutta-paccaya) > dissociation-condition (vippayutta-paccaya) > presence-condition (atthi-paccaya) > absence-condition (natthi-paccaya) > disappearance-condition (vigata-paccaya) > non-disappearance-condition (avigata-paccaya) > > The Buddha taught how every reality which arises is dependent on > conditions. These conditions are not abstractions, they operate now, > in our daily life. What we take for our mind and our body are mere > elements which arise because of their appropriate conditions and are > devoid of self. We should consider the conditions for the bodily > phenomena which arise and fall away all the time. > --------- > Nina. Thank you for this lovely list! I guess there is a complex description of how they operate together somewhere? Is there something in "Survey" or should I look elsewhere? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #98045 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 8:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 23-mei-2009, om 8:30 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > > > Is there a nice list of them somewhere? > ------ > N:I make you one, this is a quote from my "Conditions": Oh I am silly. I asked where to find the operation of these conditions; obviously it must be in your book "Conditions." Can I see this online? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98046 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 24, 2009 11:28 pm Subject: Exquisite Bliss! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Mental Dhamma-Medicine! Of all the Medicines in the world, even & ever so numerous & different none is comparable to this Dhamma. Therefore, friends, take this Dhamma. Having swallowed & digested this sublime Dhamma Medicine, you will go beyond ageing & death. You will be freed & cured of all Craving. Good & Bad Luck in life is actually obvious: Those who respect the Dhamma flourish! Those who despise the Dhamma deteriorate... Having been shown this straight Way, that thrust into Deathlessness. You, through prudence and patience, will reach it, touch it, & know it directly, as the stream of the river Ganges, always reaches the mighty ocean. Only Dhamma-Medicine cures Death! Prozac-Free Happiness! Exquisite Bliss! Adapted from Gemstones of Good Dhamma Wheel 342/344 Ven. S. Dhammika, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel342.html BPS Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka. ATI Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Dhamma-Medicine = Exquisite Bliss!! #98047 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Mon May 25, 2009 3:05 am Subject: Re: Skillful thieves (was: [dsg] Re: effort.] [1] sarahprocter... Hi Ann & all, >>S: So here are examples of past dhammas and concepts conditioning present thinking and remembrance by natural decisive support condition. > ... A:> Can you please say more about concepts conditioning present thinking and remembrance by natural decisive support. What caught my attention was "concepts" - as a condition for anything. .... S: Yes, concepts are included in natural decisive support condition (as well as in object condition) as a condition for cittas and cetasikas to arise later. On this condition (pakatuupanissaya paccaya), this summary is given: From ‘Summary & Exposition’ (PTS comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha), ch 8 “A natural decisive-support is a decisive support causal condition by its very nature (pakati), by its own intrinsic nature irrespective of any other kind of causal condition. it is said to be an individual decisive support, apart, that is, from object and contiguity. Or else, a natural decisive-support causal condition is a decisive-support causal condition that is ‘ready’ (pakata), where the ‘pa’ in pakata is a prefix. It shows that it is something, with its capacity to give rise to its own effect, that has been produced and practised in a [mental and physical] continuity. Therefore natural decisive-support causal conditions consist of greed, etc, or faith, etc, that have been produced in one’s own mental continuity, or seasonal change and food, etc, that have been repeatedly experienced.†S: Natural decisive support condition is the broadest of conditions and can be said to include all other conditions, I believe. Any concept thought about can act as a condition for kusala or akusala cittas to arise, along with any cittas, cetasikas or rupas. Although, 'seasonal change' or 'food' can be said to be short-hand for various realities, still concepts themselves are always listed under the conditioning factors for pakatuupanissaya paccaya. Hence,to give a graphic example, thoughts of killing or pornography or stealing and the concepts involved can be a condition for future unwholesome thoughts. On the other hand, the intellectual study and understanding of (concepts of) Dhamma, i.e. pariyatti, can be a condition for further right understanding to develop. Not only the cittas involved, but also the objects, such as (the concept of) visible object or sound, for example, can be a condition in this way for right understanding. I'm very interested in this topic too, so please let me know how this sounds. It's a topic I raised many times in Bangkok. Metta, Sarah p.s.Apologies for delays - we were away for the weekend at the nearby resort in Fiji and I was without computer and internet. It's rather like travelling in India - most the time one has no idea what's going on in the rest of the world. The local newspaper (if one can get hold of a copy) has rugby on its front page and most other pages! ========== #98048 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 4:25 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 24 sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, > >S: The more understanding develops, the less concerned one is about > > what the situation is with regard to the development of right > > understanding and right awareness. Never mind whether one has > > dropped something and is cursing (!) or whether we're enjoying the > > fine weather or absorbed in a complicated task -- just different > > namas and rupas arising to be known when they appear without any > > special effort or 'doing' of any kind. > ------- > N: People stumble over not doing anything. But they forget that when > understanding understands that whatever appears is a conditioned > dhamma which cannot be changed by anybody, there is no hindrance to > the development of pa~n~naa. Whereas if one worries about creating > favorable conditions the idea of self hinders the development of > pa~n~naa. .... S: This is so true and worth repeating! What is thought of as being assistance is actually the very hindrance. These are the complications and distractions brought about by atta-di.t.thi. Metta, Sarah ======= #98049 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 25, 2009 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (11-12) sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Alex (Connie, Nina & all), --- On Tue, 19/5/09, Scott wrote: **walshe: <...> In MA (ad MN 5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source unknown): Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate -- no third can be. Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie. .... S: This is always such a good verse to read and there are other interesting points in Walshe's notes, such as the following which reminds me of the discussions with Alex on this point about the use of 'I' and 'self' by the Buddha: "In the same way, all such expressions as 'I', 'self' and so on are always in accordance with conventional truth, and the Buddha never hesitated to use the word attaa 'self' (and also with plural meaning: 'yourselves' , etc.) *5 in its conventional and convenient sense." S: There are some comments by Walshe in the intro. which I disagree with, however, such as the following one: "In point of fact, it should be stressed that conventional truth is sometimes extremely important. The whole doctrine of karma and rebirth has its validity only in the realm of conventional truth. That is why, by liberating ourselves from the viewpoint of conventional truth we cease to be subject to karmic law." .... S: This doesn't make sense to me, does it to anyone else? Thanks for including all the detail, Scott, Connie & Nina. Metta, Sarah ======== Objections to the idea of rebirth in Buddhism, too, are sometimes based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the two truths. As long as we are unenlightened 'worldlings' , our minds habitually operate in terms of 'me' and 'mine', even if in theory we know better. It is not until this tendency has been completely eradicated that full enlightenment can dawn. At Sa'myutta Nikaaya 22.89 the Venerable Khemaka, who is a Non-Returner, explains how 'the subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, of the 'I'-desire, an unextirpated lurking tendency to think: 'I am'', still persists even at that advanced stage. Probably the best account of the Buddha's attitude to truth is given by Jayatilleke in The Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (1963, 361ff.). It may be mentioned that for those who find this work hard going, his second, posthumous book, The Message of the Buddha (1975), makes for easier reading. Jayatilleke has been attacked for equating the philosophy of Buddhism too closely with the modern school of logical positivism. In this connection it is perhaps best to let him speak for himself: << The Buddha, again, was the earliest thinker in history to recognise the fact that language tends to distort in certain respects the nature of reality and to stress the importance of not being misled by linguistic forms and conventions. In this respect, he foreshadowed the modern linguistic or analytical philosophers. >> (The Message of the Buddha, 33). It seems hard to find any fault with that. Jayatilleke goes on: << He was the first to distinguish meaningless questions and assertions from meaningful ones. As in science he recognised perception and inference as the twin sources of knowledge, but there was one difference. For perception, according to Buddhism, included extra-sensory forms as well, such as telepathy and clairvoyance. Science cannot ignore such phenomena and today there are Soviet as well as Western scientists, who have admitted the validity of extra-sensory perception in the light of experimental evidence.>> Probably most readers will concede the possibility that the Buddha knew a few things which modern science is only now beginning to discover, or accept. We will leave it at that. **olds: [ 4.11 ]Cattaari ~naa.naani. Dhamme ~naa.na.m, anvaye ~naa.na.m, paricchede ~naa.na.m, sammuti ~naa.na.m. [ 4.11.1 ] anvaye: PED: [fr. anu + i] 1. conformity, accordance; 2. following, having the same course, behaving according to, consequential in conformity with. Rhys Davids and Walshe take this as knowledge of what is in conformity with Dhamma. This is not indicated by the text, and I think what is intended is the general principle. For example, supposing one were in a debate with someone of another view who was presenting their idea; it would be necessary to be able to determine what followed from their theories in order to present counter arguments. [ 4.11.2 ] paricchede: PED: 1. exact determination, circumscription, range, definition, connotation, measure; 2. limit, boundary; 3. limitation, restriction; 4. division (of time); 5. (town)-planning, designing. Rhys Davids and Walshe take this, apparently following the commentary as paresa'n citta-paricchede. Again I think the better course is to stick with what we are given, and understand that it includes this as one reasonable way to apply it. [ 4.11.3 ] This is an interesting concept in that the implication is that knolwledge in general is what is agreed upon as knowledge, arrived at by general consensus. **rd: 4.11Of this category, (1) and (2) occur in S. II, 57 f. There they are described respectively as the 'four truths' applied to 'decay and death,' and this tradition as loyally held and to be held. Vibhanga, 329 f., gives the four, describing (1) as understanding the four paths and their fruits, and (2) as tradition of the four truths respecting suffering as loyally held, etc. B. here quotes Vibh., but defines (1) as the four truths. 4.11.1For pariccheda- read (as in B. and Vibh.) paricce- B.: paresa.n citta-paricchede ~naa.na.n. But he reads paricce in the text. 4.11.2Cf. Milinda i, 226. CSCD < Date: Mon May 25, 2009 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflections on death sarahprocter... Dear Ven Yanatharo, --- On Fri, 22/5/09, Ajahn Jose wrote: >My Dear Sarah and Nina, you asked me to share some of my reflections on death. Well, when I enter the Hospice, I kew that I had only a few weeks and as a Doctor l knew what was happening. I was angry and very bad caracter, because I am 63 and I question why me, I know all the teachings of Buddha,but yet I do want to live and enjoy my life and my dogs, not good thinking for a Monk, but I was never a good Monk anyway. .... S: "Why me"? Why kamma? You are talking about the conditioned nature of dhammas, the inevitability of Dukkha at each moment as we inevitably cling to what cannot last from moment to moment. Yes, the purpose of the Monk's life is to develop right understanding of the Truths and the first truth is that all these dhammas we cling to are Dukkha. Ven Khemika was a "good Monk" who had eradicated wrong view of Atta. Until Self-view is eradicated, other defilements such as attachment and anger are bound to arise lifetime after lifetime, on and on without even a partial eradication of them. This is why the teaching about Dhammas as anatta lies at the very heart of the Buddha's Word: SN 22.89 Khemaka Sutta About Khemaka Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html >On one occasion many elder monks were staying at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. And at that time Ven. Khemaka was staying at the Jujube Tree Park, diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then in the late afternoon the elder monks left their seclusion and addressed Ven. Dasaka, [saying,] "Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "We hope you are getting better, friend. We hope you are comfortable. We hope that your pains are lessening and not increasing. We hope that there are signs of their lessening, and not of their increasing."'" Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him: "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'We hope you are getting better, friend. We hope you are comfortable. We hope that your pains are lessening and not increasing. We hope that there are signs of their lessening, and not of their increasing.'" "I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening." Then Ven. Dasaka went to the elder monks and, on arrival, said to them, "The monk Khemaka has said to me, 'I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening.'" "Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do you assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?"'" Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do you assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?'" "Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."< ***** S: Ven Khemaka experienced great pain and sickness, but he fully understood that all such experiences were anatta, momentary mental and physical phenomena arising and passing away. None of them belonged to him. He was not yet an arahat, but he had no doubt about the Path or the Truths. In such a way, we can reflect wisely on life at this very moment and so understand that life has always been like this and always will....just momentary experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking about various objects. Gradually through such direct understanding of the realities of life at this moment, we become free from the snare of wrong views and attachment. .... >I am stillangry that my life is being robed,once again not a very good Monk, because my detachment is not completed. I will always treasure that meeting that I had in Bangkog with all of you. All my love.Metta. ... S: I think your reaction and the anger are very natural. As you say, the reason is that there is still so much attachment for us all and not enough detachment. Even such anger, however, can be known as a passing dhamma, not belonging to you or anyone else. We read about monks who became enlightened having just experienced great despair. Of course, it wasn't because of the despair, but they understood at such times, the despair for what it was - just passing mental states. I wish you patience, calm and wise understanding of the Truths. We were also delighted to meet you and have you participate in our discussion in Bangkok. Metta, Sarah p.s. I think you may find it helpful to listen to some of the other uploaded edited discussions with A.Sujin to be found here: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ To listen, scroll down to below the archives and you'll find them. Pls let us know if you have any difficulty listening here, in which case I'm sure someone can help burn a c.d. to send you. =============== #98051 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 25, 2009 6:09 am Subject: [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 38. nilovg Dear friends, The “cemetery-meditations” are included in the “Applications of Mindfulness”, under the section of “Mindfulness of the Body”. We read in the “Satipatthåna-sutta” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 10): ‘And again, monks, as a monk might see a body thrown aside in a cemetery, dead for one day or for two days or for three days, swollen, discoloured, decomposing; he focuses on this body itself, thinking: “This body, too, is of a similar nature, a similar constitution, it has not got past that (state of things).”…It is thus too, monks, that a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body.’ This passage can be applied by all who develop vipassanå, no matter whether they have first developed the “cemetery-meditations” as a meditation subject of samatha or not. What we take for our body are only elements which are each moment subject to decay. We should “contemplate the body in the body”, we should not take it for something which stays, for “self”. ******* Nina. #98052 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Mon May 25, 2009 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Thu, 21/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >> S: Yes, I agree. The illusion is the 'self'. Anatta is the *real* characteristic of all dhammas. R:> I certainly agree with this. The question really is: What *is* the characteristic of anatta when it is perceived as a characteristic of a dhamma? .... S: Just the dhamma, just the dhatu, just the 'seeing' or 'visible object', no atta. .... >If I can be bold enough to imagine what that might be like, imagine your example of hardness and experiencing it arising, sustaining and then passing away. One can imagine that the direct experience of this rising and passing of the hardness would directly reveal that there is no core, no self, in that play of "anicca," that there is merely the experience of hardness changing and then vanishing, and that this directly shows the characteristic of "not-self." In seeing this play of changes directly in the dhamma, one would be perfectly clear that no self of any kind comes into play and this would express the anatta characteristic of the hardness. .... S: I would put it the other way round and suggest that by understanding the hardness as just hardness, the characteristic of anatta becomes apparent. As this understanding of the dhamma develops more precisely, the characteristic of anicca - the arising and passing of the hardness - is directly revealed and with it the unsatisfactoriness or dukkha of that element. .... >Though I don't of course presently experience this on the micro-moment level, it is not impossible for me to imagine that this is how the inherent characteristic of anatta may be experienced. On the level of conceptual understanding, I have a hope that this is not totally off the mark. ... S: No, I don't think it's "totally off the mark" by any means. However, I think the understanding of the dhamma as anatta becomes clear first. The understanding of its impermanence only becomes apparent later (3rd stage of insight) after namas and rupas are clearly understood as namas and rupas and their conditioned nature has become apparent (and with that, no more doubts about such dhammas). .... >>S: I've appreciated all your discussions on this topic and your keen questioning: -). R:>Thank you; it is a topic that stretches the desire to see clearly; and I hope that is a positive thing. ... S: Yes, I think that continued questioning and considering in this way is very important. This is why such discussions are very helpful and listening/reading on its own is often not enough. Your comments and questions are many of us, Rob. Metta, Sarah ==== #98053 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 25, 2009 6:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (11-12) , sutta 12 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, sutta 12: Walshe DN 33.1.11(12) [iii 227] 'Four more knowledges: knowledge of suffering, its origin, its cessation, the path. (Aparaanipi cattaari ~naa.naani : dukkhe ~naa.na.m, dukkhasamudaye ~naa.na.m, dukkhanirodhe ~naa.na.m, dukkhanirodhagaaminiyaa pa.tipadaaya ~naa.na.m.) ---------- N: The co speaks with regard to knowledge of suffering etc. about a monk who has accomplished arahatship. The subco states that also the path knowledge of the sotaapanna has realized the four noble Truths, but at the accomplishment of arahatship the realization is more excellent. N: There are different degrees of understanding the four noble Truths. The arahat will be freed from the cycle, there never will be the arising of nama and rupa at rebirth. He has truly reached the cessation of dukkha. The co and subco explain that the first two truths, dukkha and its cause which is craving, relate to being in the cycle (va.t.ta) and the last two truths: the cessation of dukkha and the Path leading to cessation relate to freedom from the cycle, viva.t.ta. The subco explains that the first two truths are profound because they are hard to grasp. The “Dispeller of Delusion” (I, p. 112), states that “they are mundane and accompanied by cankers”. The subco states that the first two truths are coarse: the dukkha of animals, their oppression, and the desire for food are obvious. However, because of the inability to really understand ‘this is dukkha, this is its cause’, they are profound. The subco explains that the last two truths are subtle. The “Dispeller of Delusion” states that they are supramundane and without cankers. The subco explains that because of their profundity they are difficult to grasp. ------- N: Many conditions are necessary to grasp the first two truths. The co mentions studying, asking questions, listening, bearing in mind, grasping and penetration. In order to understand that the nama and rupa appearing in our life arise and fall away and are therefore dukkha, we have to listen to the Dhamma over and over again. We have to consider what we heard and discuss it, asking questions. It is difficult to thoroughly understand dukkha and the origination of dukkha. The noble truths have to be related to our daily life. We cling to all the objects that can be experienced through the senses. Clinging may be subtle or coarse, and all forms and degrees of clinging should be known as they are, as conditioned dhammas. If there is no awareness and understanding of clinging it is not possible to penetrate the four noble Truths. ------------ Pali: Dukkhe ~naa.naadiihi arahatta.m paapetvaa ekassa bhikkhuno niggamana.m catusaccakamma.t.thaana.m kathita.m. Tattha dve saccaani va.t.ta.m, dve viva.t.ta.m... --------- Nina. #98054 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 7:41 am Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) sprlrt Hi Robert E, Jon, & all J: The arising, persisting and ceasing aspect within the single moment of a dhammas "being" can be known to (highly developed) panna. Such panna would see the dhamma's arising (from not having been), and it's falling away (to no longer being). R: Well if that somehow takes place within a single moment, then a citta could see a concomitant nama rising and falling away in that same moment, but it can't see another citta since there is only one at a time, and it can't see itself, so it is still close to impossible for this to take place. What panna sees, as I understand it, is over a succession of cittas it can see directly the rising, persisting and falling away of a *rupa,* since this takes 15 or 17 moments of cittas, and panna can accumulate this knowledge over time with the help of vittaka and whatever else. Maybe someone can clear this up. A: Sense door processes of cittas are rare compared to mind door ones, with non-vithi/process of cittas (bhavanga/life continumm), at least three (with the last bhavanga before a mind process providing the object, i.e. functioning as the mind-door), where no object appears through no door, separating each single process/vithi. The mind door processes all six class of objects, including visible....tangible (ad thinkable, dhammarammana, as well), once more after they've been through a sense door process lasting up to 17 citta-moments, rupa's lifespan (i.e. the sense object falls away at the end of the sense process that has experienced it), as nimitta (sign/shadow/facsimile), for instance the nimitta of visible object, ruparammana. It is still a paramattha dhamma, not quite a being or a thing, yet. With the right conditions (hearing/studying & yoniso manasikara, proper considering what one hears or studies, i.e. pañña again, even as just a tiny seed, hard to detect, recognize and attend to in the jungle of paññatti), sati, pañña and many other sobhana/beautiful dhammas can start to grow, develop and accumulate instead than moha, ditthi and all the other akusala/ugly ones. Alberto PS In one of her tapes KS describes advanced stages of satipatthana on the lines of ... there is something then nothing then something again then nothing again then.... #98055 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 25, 2009 9:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 24-mei-2009, om 22:45 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for this lovely list! I guess there is a complex > description of how they operate together somewhere? Is there > something in "Survey" or should I look elsewhere? ------- N: Under Conditions: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ But I do not know whether this is the revised edition already. They will be printed end of the year. Survey mentions also conditions, but not in a specific order. This has a reason: more important than knowing definitions is understanding how they occur in daily life. They are not theory. Nina. #98056 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 9:14 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > > So give a quote. That's what I just asked for. If not, you are just > confirming that "no such statement exists." ------- Arrrragh, I do give quotes! :-) --------------------- <. . .> KH: > > According to your understanding, people and trees (for example) are > anatta. But that is not what the Buddha taught! Only dhammas bear the > anatta characteristic. R: > This is where the rubber meets the road, and where we will fundamentally disagree. You seem to believe in two separate worlds, the world of conventional objects and the world of "real dhammas." ---------------------- I don't know how I gave that impression. I possibly hold the DSG record for saying the most times, "there are only dhammas!" :-) --------------- KH: > > OK, to loosely quote from the Anattalakkhana Sutta, 'Because citta > (consciousness) is anatta it is not possible to say 'Let my > consciousness stay the way it is.' <. . .> R: > I think that is pretty loose, because I believe that the Buddha's argument proceeds in the opposite direction. ----------------- All right, but don't say I never give the quotes you've asked for. You asked for a quote that would indicate for anatta the same sort of thing we were saying about mass (in conventional science). The ability of matter to be weighed is proof of its inherent characteristic, mass. The inability of a dhamma to be controlled is proof of its inherent characteristic, anatta. (Anattalakkhana Sutta) Concepts do not possess the anatta characteristic and accordingly we cannot say with right understanding that they are uncontrollable. Nor can we say with right understanding that they are 'controllable' or 'both controllable and uncontrollable' or 'neither controllable nor uncontrollable.' (Brahmajala Sutta) But we can say dhammas are uncontrolable. That is because (and only because) they possess the anatta characteristic. ----------------------------------- R: > He never starts with anatta. He says "Because it is not possible to say 'Let my consciousness stay the way it is" it is not worthy of being seen as part of self, and is therefore anatta. <. . .> Anatta is the conclusion not the premise. That means that anatta comes from observation on the ground of the temporary and painful nature of the changing reality of samsara, not the other way around. ------------------------------------ I did predict that quotes wouldn't prove anything by themselves (because we would have different understandings of them). -------------------- KH > > > The consciousness you and I conventionally know certainly > *can* stay the way it is. H: > No it does not. This is absolutely fundamentally wrong. Our ordinary consciousness changes completely from moment to moment. --------------------- I see. So if someone were to tell you they were, for example, concentrating on their driving you would dispute that. :-) I don't think you would. Unless, of course, you were discussing conditioned dhammas at the time. -------------------------------------- R: > There are not two realities, one that changes and one that does not. The nature of delusion is precisely that we *falsely* assume that conventional consciousness does not change based on false concepts and interpretations, while in fact there are *only* dhammas taking place - the real dhammas, not conventional ones, which don't exist. Conventional objects are not real, they are conceptually based and based on delusion, so the idea that they "don't change" is a falsehood. This separation between conventional reality and dhammas is a major stumbling block. You can never perceive the "paramatha" world while seeing the ordinary world as an impenetrable one, separate from dhammas. ------------------- It's simply a matter of knowing what we are talking about. If we are talking about conditioned dhammas then nothing - not even the entire universe - lasts for more than a moment. If, however, we are talking about conventionally known things (people, cars, galaxies . . .) then of course they can last for more than a moment. --------------------- <. . > R: > We say this based on akusala concepts that are based in delusion. ------------------ Yes, we ordinary folk do speak about concepts mostly with ignorance. (However, in rare moments of dana or sila we can speak about them without ignorance.) ------------------------ <. . .> KH: > > Similarly, with regard to the body, we can say, "I have > been sitting in this chair for two minutes." > > R: > Also merely a concept. The "paramatha dhammas" do not exist somewhere else. They are the actuality of what "sitting in the chair" consists of; only that sitting is a concept and chair is a concept, and what we are actually experiencing is hardness, movement, etc. ------------------------ Yes, I agree. Whether we realise it or not there are always only dhammas. But here we are talking about ultimate realities - including the dhammas that create concepts of sitting - we are not talking about the concepts themselves. The Buddha did not expect us to forgo talk about worldly things and activities. We simply need to keep the two truths separate in our ways of understanding. ---------------------------------- KH: > > The mental and physical things in the > conventionally known world really do last. R: > No they do not. This is the same as saying "delusion is reality." KH: > > It would be ludicrous to > suggest they didn't. R: > It is not ludicrous for anyone who believes in the Dhamma. I am surprised that you don't see this. It is only ludicrous from the same conventional thinking that is based in unreal concepts. --------------------------- The point I am trying to make in all of this is that the commonly held modern-day view of anatta is WRONG. I remember at a Goenka "vipassana" retreat hearing a story about a gold ring. The culmination of the story was, "This too will change!" And I suppose gold rings do change, eventually. But that's not anatta. Contrary to Goenke's teaching, the understanding that concepts change is not vipassana. --------------------- KH: > > And the Buddha didn't suggest it: his teaching was > only about dhammas (absolute realities). > > R: > This is *not* what he said. You are misinterpreting his very words. Let's take a look at a statement that cannot be interpreted any other way than contradicting what you just wrote, from the same sutta on the nature of anatta, his second after awakening: "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'" "ANY form, blatant or subtle; common or sublime." How can this be interpreted any other way than the Buddha saying that both conventional and absolute reality are to be seen as anatta? ------------------------------ I doubt the Buddha was including concepts. We can, of course, see concepts as having a conventional sort of impermanence, and that is often used as a simile for anatta (for teaching purposes). But even so, I doubt the Buddha was including concepts in this sutta. I think "subtle" might refer to dhammas that are especially hard to know (such as bavangha-citta). And I think "sublime" might refer to the path-factors. ---------------------- R: > Maybe the higher discernment of dhammas is more direct, but that does not mean that conventional objects cannot be understood as anatta. That would make the teaching only for stream-enterers, and I don't believe that. Do you? ---------------------- Strictly speaking, the Buddha did teach "the way of the ariyans." But we ordinary Dhamma students can at least have *indirect* right understanding of anicca dukkha and anatta. I'd better stop there: these posts are reaching epic proportions. :-) Ken H #98057 From: "Scott" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 11:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (11-12) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "There are some comments by Walshe in the intro. which I disagree with, however, such as the following one: 'In point of fact, it should be stressed that conventional truth is sometimes extremely important. The whole doctrine of karma and rebirth has its validity only in the realm of conventional truth. That is why, by liberating ourselves from the viewpoint of conventional truth we cease to be subject to karmic law.'....This doesn't make sense to me, does it to anyone else?" Scott: No, Sarah, I don't see what Walshe was wanting to suggest here. These words - kamma and rebirth - refer to paramattha dhammaa and the conditions by which they operate, as far as I understand. The above seems to reflect Walshe's idiosyncratic view regarding the nature of lokuttara dhammaa. I'd have thought that the 'validity' of the 'doctrine of karma and rebirth' rested on the fact that the expressions of conventional truth accurately reflect the underlying realities. 'Conventional truth' would still be 'truth', wouldn't it? If there is any 'liberating ourselves from the viewpoint of conventional truth' - which I don't really follow - this would, of necessity, be a function of the penetrative realisations of highly developed pa~n~naa in relation to paramattha dhammaa. The Buddha was fully enlightened and yet taught using conventional truth. I don't think that 'conventional truth' is what one finds liberation from. One would not be confused by the two modes of reference, however. Sincerely, Scott. #98058 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 12:32 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, I'm behind in my reading of DSG posts. The modem in my other computer is not working and I am typing for the first time from a new notebook which has access to the internet via a sim card (hard to get stay connected). I'm going straight to the comments. > > ============= > > S: When this discussion about anatta between you and Jon first started, my reaction was that the Buddha's choice for the term was probably the best. > Rob Ep: I am not denying the Buddha's term at all. I am in fact trying to support what the term actually says, and clearly means: 'not self.' When a term has the word 'not' in it, you cannot make believe that the 'not' is not there, that it is really saying 'this' instead of 'not this.' Sukin: You obviously sort out your thoughts very well, I on the other hand am extremely muddle headed. So it may be that I keep failing to follow your line of thought and end up misrepresenting you. You say anatta *clearly means* what you think it means and bring up rules of language to support your point. But shouldn't you consider more that this is a statement reflecting an understanding of / result of enlightenment to, the way things are which no one would have any clue about without the Buddha teaching it? Indeed the general language was based on perceptions of unrealities and reflection of delusion. Were the Dhamma just another view, one of the 60 odd kinds of wrong view, then it would not matter at all. But the Dhamma stands on a totally different ground, indeed the only place from which any and all those wrong views would clearly be seen for what they are. However this is about the development of Right View which is not a matter simply of holding a set of ideas meant to counter other ideas. It involves the study of present moment realities resulting in wisdom being developed to the point of having direct insight into the way things are. This means that if upon reading the Dhamma, one fails to relate whatever that has been read to present moment experiences, chances are that one's understanding of what has been read is not quite right. The first step is Pariyatti and pariyatti must as I said, relate to the present moment. And no one has ever suggested that the `not' in `not self' is of no import. I have even said that its choice must have been the ideal, considering that `self view' is inevitable if there is no Dhamma. However the Buddha was not just another teacher and the Teachings are not just another set of ideas meant to replace or counter other prevailing ideas. It is the *only* teaching which points to the way things actually are and this includes the Fourth Noble Truth, namely the Path. It would not be in accordance with the aim were his teachings to condition thinking without any level of application. ==================== > Rob Ep: I do not pretend to see realities directly, although I may have had a half-glimpse or two, but I disagree that my view on this does not serve the attempt to see realities directly and to observe anatta in the present moment. Sukin: The suggestion that Anatta means simply that there is no `self' and this is understood as a result of seeing nama and rupa for what they are makes it just `theory', of little or no practical consequence in the meantime. =============== > Rob Ep: If one distorts what the most basic meaning of something is, there is absolutely no chance that one will ever see this directly. If pariyatti is so distorted that the basic meaning of something is denied, then what good will it do to try to clarify it further? Sukin: The purpose of the Dhamma is to draw the attention to the present moment reality and this begins with pariyatti. Pariyatti understanding at a beginning level would have it that whatever this is, it is just a dhamma arisen by conditions and already fallen away. So while one insists on having a satisfying definition and not knowing that such thinking is conditioned, one actually accumulates more ignorance. =============== > Rob Ep: It is possible that one's own proliferations in philosophy have such a solid sway that it is no longer possible to look at the simple basic reality of the words used by the Master Teacher, and they have been distorted. In that case it is important to clarify that basic meaning so that it is not further obscured. Sukin: Yes it is very important to be clear as possible what is read, and when expressing to others, there is also the factor of responsibility. But we have to consider the purpose as well. If I fail to see that the aim is to understand the present moment and end up instead being involved in `thinking', I'll then also encourage the same in others. If on the other hand I'm constantly being drawn to study the present moment, this is what I will encourage in others as well. Studying the present moment is how you and I would both come to know *exactly* what Anatta is wouldn't we? ============= > Rob Ep: Buddha defined anatta in terms of the beliefs of the day, and in terms of the *inherent* belief in a self that is part of our legacy as a human species, as sentient beings. As sentient beings we tend to belief in self without any proof because all things that happen in our conventional perception seem to lead back to the center of consciousness, and we presume there is someone in there and that phenomena circulate around this self. Sukin: You've got a story there which you use to support your position. But know also that `self view' arises even at sense door experience taking such as `visible object' for self. Yes you could say that this is `inherent' in the sense that it is inevitable in the absence of the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths. But how would anyone have known `self view' at the moment of it taking visible object as object were the teaching about Anatta not applicable at this level? In other words, the problem is not a well formed belief in `self', but that these beliefs originate from wrong perception at the paramattha level. Besides what do you think about the teachings on the three kinds of sanna, namely anicca sanna, dukkha sanna and anatta sanna and their opposites? Where would anatta sanna apply in the suggestion that anatta means simply the `absence of self'? Also there is this that at the moment of enlightenment, depending on accumulations, one person will experience Nibbana via penetrating the characteristic of anicca, another by dukkha and another by anatta? What do you make of this? ============ > Rob Ep: So Buddha needed to counteract this very basic assumption of all human beings and do so strongly. Atta is the noun that existed as the 'self,' and Atman was the form in which self was defined as a spiritual or eternal self. The teaching regarding phenomena is that all things within samsara, including the experience of the human organism and personality are 'not self,' meaning that they are not a self and they are not a part of a self. Sukin: Atman does not exist, period. This can be seen as being purely the product of `thinking' even now. So obviously the teaching on anatta must require an understanding much deeper than this. If I am not mistaken, I think you apply anatta to concepts of people and things as well, am I right? If so, I wonder why would it then require seeing namas and rupas as being all there is that exists? ============== > Rob Ep: Anatta is a positive characteristic of all things in the sense that all things when seen in reality are lacking a self and are not part of self, and it takes wisdom to see this. Sukin: What do you mean by "characteristic" here?! Are you going to define it as being a concept with no reference to a reality? ============== > Rob Ep: That does not mean that "anatta" is something other than what it actually is, which is 'not' 'self.' Sukin: And this is the "characteristic"? -to be continued- Metta, Sukin #98059 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 12:35 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 2. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, -continuing- ============== > Rob Ep: To say it is some weird other thing that can only be seen with panna, but which we can not even comprehend intellectually prior to this, is a distortion of the clear and obvious meaning that the Buddha himself espoused. Sukin: No, it is saying that anything taught by the Buddha requires panna on the part of the listener, beginning with pariyatti level. Were it a matter of formulation of language regardless of the audience, then there would have been no one who would have gone away after meeting the Buddha, who did not then become his follower. However as you know, there were many who were very capable at thinking and analyzing, but remained attached to their wrong views. ============== > Rob Ep: It is not necessary to add this kind of mysticism to the Buddha's teaching, and to put off understanding of basic concepts of Buddhism for future lifetimes, when it is obvious now. If we want to some day see directly the realities that the Buddha taught about, we should not distort their basic meaning now, when we are capable of clarifying them instead. Sukin: Obvious?!! What is obvious to you from the word and what are you trying to convince me of? That anatta means simply the absence of `self' when the fact is that even now there can be the understanding of `thinking' as conditioned and beyond control? Ken has suggested to you that Anatta meant including that dhammas are beyond control, so it is not anything mystical as far as he is concerned. But you not only not appreciate the understanding, but go on to accuse him of failing to say anything positive about Anatta. Whose fault is this? ;-) ============= > > This one of the three characteristics inherent in all conditioned realities was something not known to anyone before the Buddha taught the Dhamma. Could this not be the reason why the Buddha had no alternative than to define it in terms of what in fact is the opposite but mistakenly taken for real, namely `self'? > Rob Ep: So according to the above, there are these two realities, one is false and one is real. The false one is easy to understand - it is the "self," which is an unreal construct or concept of the ignorant. On the other hand, there is the *real* characteristic of all dhammas, which can only be seen by the wise - it is called "not-self," or "anatta." It is real, but no one knows what the heck it is, because we cannot define it at all until we awaken. Sukin: Not two realities. There is concept and there are realities. Concepts flows from the experience of realities and the Buddha's disciples knew exactly what is what. Wrong view includes mistaking concepts for realities, and this is where the rest of us are. We can gradually begin to understand this, but given the depth of the Dhamma plus our own yet very weak understanding, I don't think one could expect to be `convincing'. Yet when Ken or Sarah for example talk about anatta, I can relate to it, which is having a little understanding arise and be accumulated. But this is because like them, I've had some moments of studying the present moment. The same will not happen with someone else in whom this has not happened is not surprising. ;-) =============== > Rob Ep: So "not-self," which you say is the opposite of the delusory "self," does not mean what it says. It does not mean "not self" even though you say it is the opposite of the false "self," but means something completely different, because it must be a positive characteristic that is actual, rather than the insight that there is *no self* in any dhamma. Sukin: Of course Anatta or not self means exactly what it means and we should not be so sure what this is, especially when we are still so ignorant. The Dhamma is deep, so let's be careful not to underestimate its meaning. What do you make of the idea that there is on one hand, `atta sanna' and on the other, `anatta sanna'? Remember that sanna or perception arises with all cittas and marks the object. And btw, does the common everyday use of the term `impersonal' mean simply `not relating to persons' with no reference to some other positive quality? =============== > Rob Ep: This kind of mysticism is so distorted it only adds delusion to delusion. There is no reason to think that there is a thing of some kind that *is* a "not self" and that it is opposite to a "self" and really exists. That is indeed proliferating, because it is taking th obvious and the clear and turning it into an obscurity and an opacity. To do so is in the opposite direction of 'seeing.' It is instead saying that 'this truth cannot be seen at all. We don't know what it is, but the Abhidhamma teaches us that it is real, and that is good enough.' Sukin: Talking about `proliferation', this is exactly how I characterize your position. There is proliferation which is craving, conceit and there is wrong view. While some of us who insist on Anatta and the other two marks being characteristic of realities, this is supported by the fact that in experience dhammas are seen as arising and falling away by conditions beyond control. There is no insistence therefore on following the dictates of a `self' in any of these three forms, to make sati and panna arise. Not at anytime, let alone in the idea of following some rite and ritual as in `formal meditation'. This is in accordance with the Dhamma and is an instance of Right View, which is what the development of wisdom all about. So you don't really have to worry about us encouraging wrong view when it comes to this. We are not trying to catch the `anatta characteristic'? And this is no mysticism and our faith in the Abhidhamma is not blind. On the other hand, given your focus, I think that you are missing out on what is really important. While you state that the point is to understand namas and rupas, failing to see that this very moment is conditioned, particularly when thinking to `meditate', you invariably follow the dictates of the proliferation which is wrong view, and of craving. Craving and conceit actually are not the immediate problem however, with wrong view still so dominating, these two would likely become the object of self / wrong view when there is concern about how they can lessen. It is the same with all dhammas, including sati and panna which we would like to have more of. Therefore as far as I'm concerned, it is you who is encouraging self view and wrong practice when you think in terms of `things to do' and tie this to a projected idea about what might be the result, namely what anatta is and when it is known. Your insistence on getting a description of anatta which satisfies you, this too impresses upon me as being due to self view. OK, I said it. :-) ============== > > Could it not be an affirmation of a one *real* characteristic, which remains forever hidden due to ignorance and wrong view? > > Rob Ep: Yes, of course, the "real characteristic" that is anatta is the plain actuality of what things are, that they have the characteristic of being what they are and not something else. They are not a self, they are not an entity, they are not part of a permanent and eternal other thing; they are just what is at the moment. That is anatta, not-self. Sukin: You should not use the word `characteristic' here then, unless you are happy with being vague about it. ;-) Btw, what do you think of these two of the 24 conditions taught in the Abhidhamma, namely `absence condition' and `disappearance condition'? I wonder if you have similar problem with these as you do with Anatta. Actually add to this also `dissociation condition'….. ============= > > And from this would one not arrive at the conclusion that there indeed is no "self" anywhere with more firm basis? > > Rob Ep: Yes, but we won't see that by making up a mythical object out of this clear teaching. Sukin: But what if it is true that Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta are characteristics *of* and only of conditioned realities and this is gradually understood as study of the present moment takes places by way of pariyatti or patipatti? What if this hasn't happened and one continues instead to move in the wrong direction due to the power of proliferation which is wrong view. And what if rather than have a correct pariyatti understanding about what is the Path one is convinced instead by wrong ideas about `practice' invariably ending up mistaking what is not mindfulness and understanding to be so? If I am wrong about the `characteristic' of anatta, at least I'm saved to a good extent, from wrong practice and accumulating ever more the tendency to follow rite and ritual, wouldn't you say? Of course you wouldn't. ;-) ============= > > But you are saying that the Buddha's teaching Anatta did not point to any characteristic, but only to `absence of self'. > > Rob Ep: That *is* the characteristic of anatta. That there is no self. What more do you need? It is the solution to everything, so there is no reason to underplay it by demanding that it also be a unicorn or a deva. It is *not self,* and that is more than enough. Sukin: How would I be underplaying the meaning of anatta when in line with this very understanding of the way things are, on one hand I know not to *try* to catch realities and on the other consider this characteristic to be penetrated truly only at the highest level of vipassana nnana? You seem on the other hand, to be downplaying the significance of the Noble Eightfold Path when you suggest that wisdom stops at where you say it does. Just as there is no choice in what arises now and how little or no understanding arises to know this, so too all through to the end. There is no deciding what is enough. It makes sense however to consider the different stages of insight development, that at each of these stages, different aspects of dhammas are insighted. You seem to have your own views about what is known about a dhamma and what this results in….. ============== > > This seems to be based on logical inference, > > RoB Ep: No, it is based on the understanding of what *not self* means and that it is the basis of Buddhism, that we are empty of self, and thus we can get rid of the cause of suffering. > > I have snipped the rest in which you mainly seek to dismiss my argument by saying that it is conceptual, inferred, not direct, etc. I understand your point but don't think it is correct. Let's stick to the issue. If "not self" is a something rather than a negation, then define it at least in conceptual terms, what is it supposed to be? This is a basic requirement even of having faith in something. I don't see how skipping over the issue, or putting it off for another lifetime, can lead to insight or knowledge. We must work with anatta now, not say we can't know what it is. Sukin: Obviously I have not stuck to the issue in this post either. But I think that what I've been addressing is relevant, so too in what you've chosen to snip. But it's OK wherever this will lead, even if you would like to discontinue. I know I have been quite forthright with some of my remarks and I accept that I may be wrong. Either way please don't take any of it personally. I had no idea how long this post was getting until I just printed it out to review. I guess I was enjoying my proliferations all this while. :-) -end- Metta, Sukin #98060 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 25, 2009 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: siila nilovg Dear Scott, Op 23-mei-2009, om 5:29 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Scott: In the Faultless Triplet section of the Pa.t.thaana, under > "(vi) Faulty state is related to indeterminate state by strong- > dependence condition" (vol. I, p. 163), is the following: > > "By the strong-dependence of lust, (one) tortures oneself, tortures > oneself fully, experiences the suffering caused by searching ... > hate ... delusion ... conceit ... wrong views ..." > > Pakatuupanissayo â€" raaga.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti > paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. > Dosa.m ... pe ... moha.m ... pe ... maana.m ... pe ... > di.t.thi.m ... pe ... patthana.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti > paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. > > I'd be interested is either Nina or Sarah have access to the > commentary on this passage. ------- N:No access, there is no commentary in English. Perhaps in the Burmese books? > Faulty state is related to indeterminate state: akusala is related > to vipaakacitta (indeterminate: avyaakata) , which experiences > unpleasant objects through the bodysense when he tortures himself. Nina. #98061 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 8:03 pm Subject: adhimokkha szmicio Dear friends, Here are some extracts from Nina's cetasikas. Chapter 9: Adhimokkha, determination or resolution, is another cetasika among the six "particulars" which arises with cittas of the four jatis but not with every citta. The Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 151) gives the following definition of adhimokkha: "The act of resolving is resolution. It has the characteristic of conviction. Its function is not to grope. It is manifested as decisiveness. Its proximate cause is a thing to be convinced about. It should be regarded as like a boundary-post owing to its immovableness with regard to the object." The "Paramattha Manjusa" (489), the commentary to the Visuddhimagga, states that: " the act of resolving should be understood as the act of being convinced about an object". Adhimokkha is not the same as what we usually mean by the words " determination" and "decision" in conventional language. In order to understand the characteristic of adhimokkha we should know which types of citta it accompanies. Since adhimokkha is one of the "particulars" it accompanies cittas of the four jartis and thus it can be kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya as we have seen, the "particulars" do not arise with every citta. Adhimokkha does not accompany the dvi-pacavinnas (sense-cognitions) which are accompanied only by the "universals", not by other types of cetasikas. Seeing-consciousness, for example, arises at the eye-base and sees visible object. It does not need, apart from the seven "universals", adhimokkha or any other cetasika in order to see visible object. Adhimokkha does not arise either with the type of moha-mula-citta (citta rooted in ignorance) which is accompanied bv doubt (vicikiccha). When there is doubt there cannot be at the same time the cetasika adhimokkha which "does not grope" and is "convinced" about the object. Adhimokkha accompanies all cittas other than the afore-mentioned cittas. It arises in the sense-door process as well as in the mind-door process. Adhimokkha is one among the cetasikas which assist citta in cognizing its object. Adhimokkha also accompanies the cittas which do not arise in a process: the patisandhi-citta, the bhavanga-citta and the cuti-citta. It is "convinced" about the object these cittas experience. Adhimokkha which accompanies akusala citta is determination which is akusala. When one, for example, speaks harshly or hits someone else, there is akusala adhimokkha which is convinced about the object of aversion. Adhimokkha which accompanies kusala citta is determination which is kusala. When one, for example, decides with kusala citta to study the Dhamma, kusala adhimokkha accompanies the kusala citta. However, at such a moment there are also many other wholesome cetasikas accompanying the kusala citta and adhimokkha is only one of them. It is difficult to know exactly what adhimokkha is. There is, for example, kusala cetana which "wills" kusala, there is non-attachment, alobha, and there are many other cetasikas which each have their own task in assisting the citta to perform its function. They all take part in "deciding" to study the Dhamma. When one develops right understanding of nama and rupa there is adhimokkha accompanying the kusala citta. We may believe that we can decide to make sati arise, but there is no self who can decide this. When there are the appropriate conditions for sati and panna they arise and then there is also adhimokkha which performs its function while it accompanies the kusala citta. When one begins to develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there will be doubt as to their different characteristics. When there is doubt adhimokkha does not arise. When there is right mindfulness of the nama or rupa which appears, adhimokkha performs its function of being "convinced", sure about the object. Adhimokkha is not self; it is sankhara dhamma, a conditioned dhatnrna which arises and falls away with the citta it accompanies. It performs its function only while it is accompanying the citta and then it falls away together with the citta. If the next citta is accompanied by adhimokkha it is another adhimokkha and this falls away again. " -------------- Best wishes Lukas #98062 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 25, 2009 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: siila sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Phil, Han, Nina & all), --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Scott wrote: >Scott: In the Faultless Triplet section of the Pa.t.thaana, under "(vi) Faulty state is related to indeterminate state by strong-dependence condition" (vol. I, p. 163), is the following: "By the strong-dependence of lust, (one) tortures oneself, tortures oneself fully, experiences the suffering caused by searching ... hate ... delusion ... conceit ... wrong views ..." Pakatuupanissayo raaga.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka .m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. Dosa.m ... pe ... moha.m ... pe ... maana.m ... pe ... di.t.thi.m ... pe ... patthana.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka .m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. >I'd be interested is either Nina or Sarah have access to the commentary on this passage. .... S: I don't have any books with me and as Nina said, no commentary to the Patthaana in English. I assume this is referring to akusala cittas conditioning abyaakataa cittas by pakatuupanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition). Here, I take it to be akusala cittas conditioning akusala vipaka by this condition. As we know, kamma cannot condition vipaka without the assistance of pakatuupanissaya paccaya. (As I mentioned to Ann, it is the broadest condition and can be said to include all other conditions, I believe.) You may like to also look at this message of Han's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/67120 Han may also have further comments (or commentary) on the quote above. Metta, Sarah ========= #98063 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 25, 2009 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) sarahprocter... Dear Han, James & all, --- On Sat, 23/5/09, han tun wrote: >If the sap contains aahaaraja-kalaapa, does the aahaaraja-kalaapa in the sap different from the aahaaraja-kalaapa that the humans consume? If there is no difference, can we not say that utu and aahaara contribute to the growth of trees and plants (and not just by utu)? ... S: I appreciated the points you raised and Nina has already responded. I think the big difference is the temperature within the body which is used in digestion in order for the nutriment to have its effect. For example, if you put food in the mouth of a corpse, it doesn't produce rupas. It might seem that sap contains nutriment in your example above, but it is not internally digested and this is given as essential for nutriment-condition. So it's only temperature conditioning the growth of trees and plants. We had lots of quotes from the texts on this before, as you'll recall. For example: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92684 Metta, Sarah ======== #98064 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 25, 2009 11:41 pm Subject: Not Agitated! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: The Last Relinquishment: When ignorance of the 4 Noble Truths finally fully evaporates, One no longer clings to any sense pleasure, one no longer clings to any views, One no longer clings to rules & rituals, one no longer clings to the idea of a self... When one does not cling, one is not agitated! One becomes imperturbable... When one is not agitated, one attains the state of NibbÄna right there! One then understands: Rebirth is ended, this Noble life has been lived, What had to be done is done, there is no more relapsing into any state of being... The Entrance! Source: Majjhima NikÄya I 68: The shorter speech on the Lion's Roar. Have a nice redefining the goal day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Entrance! #98065 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:09 am Subject: Re: Skillful thieves (was: [dsg] Re: effort.] [1] sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Thu, 21/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >I kind of like the awareness of these memories coming back from the past; but as you say, there is a tendency to attach a lot of meaning and sentiment to them. Good to notice that. .... S: Yes.....and to be lost in more dreams about the dreams and memories, forgetting it's just thinking at this moment. All very common. .... >My mother was pleased that we appreciated her examples of this reaction. She smiled and recalled the situations too. I will have to ask her some more about them. .... S: I'm glad it gave her pleasure.... .... >Ha ha, yes, that is funny. Don't mess around with someone who has a child with them! Speaking of random associations, one of the times when I was not so calm is when I was jogging in the countryside and ran across a baby black bear on the road, who was happily playing and looking around. I know that if the mother bear sees you near her cub she'll rip you to pieces. Boy, you should have seen me run! I think I doubled my normal jogging speed! .... S: Sounds like you ventured out of New York city for that one....calm, not calm....just conditioned dhammas. Who knows what'll be next? ... >I just recalled that you said you were surprised at how calm you were in those intense situations because you are normally nervous when you are five minutes late or about other little things. I have the same tendency. I'm calm in an emergency, but constantly have small anxieties or sometimes larger ones about the things of everyday life. I've been known to get a bit tense over having my things moved around a bit or my towel relocated. Those little tendencies always give me a clue as to how many defilements are still left to be worked on, if one is even attached to the position of one's stapler or 'special tea cup.' And watch out if someone uses my yoga mat! :-( .... S: Yes, I identify with all that! My list would be so long that I'd send everyone here to sleep, so won't start. Attachment from the moment we wake up to the moment we fall fast asleep in most cases..... But just talking about yoga mats, I have a great thin travel one which goes round the world with me and which I use outside in the grounds every morning here. Once I thought I'd lost it and was in a state of great anxiety! I'll look forward to more tales from the Epstein Memoirs like Nina! Metta, Sarah ====== #98066 From: "m_nease" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:16 am Subject: Re: Fwd: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] m_nease Hi Nina (and all), > > I'm trying to find this text (I believe it's from a translation > > identified by the translator as > > > > AN 2.19 > > Kusala Sutta > > Skillful > > > > PTS: A i 58 (II,ii,9) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > This is correct: AN Book of the Twos, Ch 2, §9. At the end, just > before Ch III, The fool (bala). > Abandon evil and cultivate the good is in this translation. > ------ > > > > M:I'd like to check the translation because I think it's inaccurate > > ('kusala' as 'skillful') but I can't seem to find the original text > > in English, much less in Paa.li. I've searched the PTS editions by > > Volume, Book, Part, Chapter and Paragraph to no avail; also the Sri > > Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series by nipaata and vaggo--also no > > luck. Can anyone tell me how to find this (or even how to search > > for it online), especially in Paa.li, perhaps by nipaata and vaggo > > in the Anguttara Nikaya? Thanks again for helping me to find this. I did check the Paa.li and 'kusala' has been translated as 'skillful'. This may seem like a minor point but I think this usage is often somewhat editorial, implying that kusala is the result of acquired skill (especially that of jhaana) rather than of having heard and considered the Dhamma or of some other condition. Sorting it out got a little complicated. The only justification I can find for this translation is from the etymology in (among other places) Narada's 'A Manual of Abhidhamma'. It refers to "based on wisdom or intelligence (kosala-sambhuuta)" (something I think you and I discussed years ago). At any rate, in the passage at hand I think that simply 'good' or 'meritorious' would have been more accurate. Still, this is a somewhat academic Paa.li question and I don't pretend to be even an elementary Paa.li student so I think I'll leave it at that, with this quote from Narada: "Etymologically speaking, things are known as kusala because they shake, react against, disturb and destroy evil, wicked things. Or, kusa describes things which are latent in an evil way, and kusa-la (qualities) are so called because they cut off and sever those things, which are akusala. Again, knowledge is known as kusa because it stops, reduces or terminates evil things, and so the meaning is that good things (kusala) should be grasped and promoted, taken hold of by that kusa or knowledge. Or just as the grass known as kusa can cut part of the hand with either edge, so these things cut off the vices in two ways, both in their latent and manifest forms. This is why they are known as kusa- because they cut like the kusa grass [Asl.39. Translation from Keown (1992)]. "Buddhaghosa in his commentaries further gave a fivefold connotation of kusala, namely, (i) free of illness or health (aarogya), (ii) unstained, clean and clear (anavajja), (iii) based on wisdom or intelligence (kosala-sambhuuta), (iv) freedom from bondage (niddaratha), and (v) conductive happiness or well-being (sukha-vipaaka). This implies that being well trained in kusala, the mind is freed from moral diseases or imperfection. It is clean and unstained by all moral corruption and having wisdom or intelligence as its base. Such qualities are totally free from distress and intrinsically conductive to welfare and happiness in this very life. Akusala characterizes whatever is negative in this regard. That is to say, it is a state or quality of mind, which is unhealthy, harmful, having ignorance as its root and resulting in suffering here and hereafter. In brief, kusala can be defined as those qualities, which lead the mind to generate and promote both in morally good quality and efficiency, leading to the attainment of nibbaana. Akusalaa, as the contrary to kusala, are those qualities or states of mind, which are against nibbanically oriented-goal and leading to regression in the samsaric cycle. "What is evil or wrongful is renounced (akusalaṃ pajahati) while the good should be cultivated (kusalaṃ bhaaveti) [A. IV. 353] is the constant advice to human beings given by the Buddha. In the Anguttaranikaaya, observing clearly the possibility of pursuing the good (kusala) and destruction of the evil (akusala) by human beings, the Buddha urges his disciples to abandon what is akusala while cultivating what is kusala: "Bhikkhu, what is morally evil should be abandoned. It can be done. If it were not possible I would not tell you to do so. Moreover, if the abandoning morally evil qualities were not conductive to welfare, but to suffering, I would not tell you `abandon evil,' but because its abandoning conduces to well being and happiness, I therefore ask you to do so. "Bhikkhu, what is morally good should be cultivated. It can be done. If it were not impossible I would not tell you to do so. Moreover, if the cultivation of morally good qualities was not conductive to welfare, but to suffering, I would not tell you `cultivate good,' but because its cultivation conduces to well-being and happiness, I therefore ask you to do so." [A. I. 58, also at A. I. 158]. "In the Diighanikaaya A.t.thakathaa, Buddhaghosa told us that one who is virtuous suffers no painful feelings whereas the accumulation of vice, on the other hand, will indubitably lead to an increase in suffering [DA. III. 1050]. On the nature of kusala, the author of the Dhammasaṇgaṇii wrote that: "Kusala are mainly of threefold root or virtue, namely, non-greed, non-aversion and non-delusion, and generally are those feelings, perceptions, proliferations and consciousness which are of morally good nature, and those bodily kamma, verbal kamma and mental kamma which have those roots as their base." "Akusala are mainly of threefold root or vice, namely, greed, aversion and delusion, and generally are those feelings, perceptions, proliferations and consciousness which are of morally evil nature, and those bodily kamma, verbal kamma and mental kamma which have those roots as their base." [Dhs. 181]" I see no real justification in this (or elsewhere) for using 'skillful' rather than 'good'. Sorry if I've belabored the point. I'll get back to the main point regarding vicikicchaa as soon as it's convenient. Thanks Again, mike #98067 From: "m_nease" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:27 am Subject: p.s. m_nease p.s. Sorry, I tried to convert all the unicode to Velthuis--obviously I missed a couple. #98068 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) buddhatrue Hi Sarah (Han and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > I think the big difference is the temperature within the body which is used in digestion in order for the nutriment to have its effect. For example, if you put food in the mouth of a corpse, it doesn't produce rupas. > > It might seem that sap contains nutriment in your example above, but it is not internally digested and this is given as essential for nutriment-condition. So it's only temperature conditioning the growth of trees and plants. > > We had lots of quotes from the texts on this before, as you'll recall. For example: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92684 > James: I am going to delay further comments and judgements until we get further into the book. At this point, I haven't gotten any type of answer as to how temperature "causes" or "conditions" rupa. That just doesn't fit in with what I know about science, the structure of atoms, the forces of gravity, and the Theory of Relativity. I'm sure Einstein would have had some problems with this Abhidhamma theory of matter. Anyone with an introductory science class knows that temperature doesn't create matter, it is matter which creates temperature. But, again, I will wait and see. Metta, James #98069 From: han tun Date: Tue May 26, 2009 1:35 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (05) hantun1 Dear Sarah (James, Nina), Thank you very much for your further explanation. As you know, in Burma, we are traditionally used to listen to the talk by the Elders, and accept their talk with no questions asked. You said if you put food in the mouth of a corpse, it doesn't produce rupas. We know that, and even one step further. When we invite people to the funeral we invite them to come and reflect on the utuja-ruupa of the diseased. We know that once a person dies his remains are maintained by utu only, until it is reduced to dust. Our Elders also believe that the external inanimate things are produced by utu only. Because they believe that I also want to believe it. Our tradition is deep in my veins. But on the other hand, I also know the modern science that sometimes is in contradiction to our traditional belief. So I ask those questions to persuade myself to believe our Elders, despite my rebellious nature. My line of argument in my question was very simple. Is there aahaaraja-ruupa in the sap of the trees? Yes nor No? If yes, aahaara also plays the role in the production of trees and plants, irrespective of the mode of production of that aahaaraja-ruupa. It is not the same as putting the food in the mouth of the dead man and the aahaaraja-ruupa in the sap of the tree. The *food* in the sap helps the trees to grow whether it is *digested* by the tree or not (not like the dead man). Anyway, I thank you very much. I have already accepted the explanation by Nina. I want to keep it that way and no further discussions on this issue. Respectfully, Han #98070 From: han tun Date: Tue May 26, 2009 1:49 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (07) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements -------------------- Chapter 1 The Four Great Elements Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. Each of these groups is composed of different kinds of rúpa. There are four kinds of rúpa, the four “Great Elements†(MahÃ¥-bhúta rúpas), which have to arise together with each and every group of rúpas, no matter whether these are rúpas of the body or rúpas outside the body. The types of rúpa other than the four Great Elements depend on these four rúpas and cannot arise without them. They are the following rúpas: the Element of Earth or solidity the Element of Water or cohesion the Element of Fire or heat the Element of Wind (air) or motion Earth, Water, Fire and Wind do not in this context have the same meaning as in conventional language, neither do they represent conceptual ideas as we find them in different philosophical systems. In the Abhidhamma they represent ultimate realities, specific rúpas each with their own characteristic. The element of earth, in PÃ¥li: paìhaví dhÃ¥tu, translated into English as “solidity†or “extensionâ€, has the characteristic of hardness or softness. It can be directly experienced when we touch something hard or soft. We do not have to name the rúpa denoted by “element of earth†in order to experience it. It is an element that arises and falls away; it has no abiding substance, it is devoid of a “selfâ€. It may seem that hardness can last for some time, but in reality it falls away immediately. Rúpas are replaced so long as there are conditions for them to be produced by one of the four factors of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. The hardness that is experienced now is already different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements to be continued. with metta, Han #98071 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 2:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > James: I am going to delay further comments and judgements until we get further into the book. At this point, I haven't gotten any type of answer as to how temperature "causes" or "conditions" rupa. That just doesn't fit in with what I know about science, the structure of atoms, the forces of gravity, and the Theory of Relativity. I'm sure Einstein would have had some problems with this Abhidhamma theory of matter. Anyone with an introductory science class knows that temperature doesn't create matter, it is matter which creates temperature. > >+++++ Dear james Temperature always arises togther with the other mahabhuta rupas like hardness etc (actually always at least 8 rupas that must arise in every kalapa). Thus all the factors that science thinks it knows about are all present. So when temperature is doing the conditioning there are always other material elements present. To me it fits in with what science seems to think - but I still contend the Dhamma is more accurate. robert #98072 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 2:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Phil (Nina and Sarah), > > More regarding: > > P: "...Failing to challenge unwholesome habits re sexual lust, such as using pornography, is inviting conditioning of such deeds..." > > Me: "I think that the above is a rather misdirected reading of the Dhamma as some sort of form of asceticism. I don't consider the Dhamma to be a mere treatise on 'self-control'. My take on what you describe is that, rather than the peaceful and quiet vibe that would accompany a moment of knowing lust as lust, you are finding instead more moments filled with anger and aversion with, apparently, a concept as object..." > > Scott: In the Faultless Triplet section of the Pa.t.thaana, under "(vi) Faulty state is related to indeterminate state by strong-dependence condition" (vol. I, p. 163), is the following: > > "By the strong-dependence of lust, (one) tortures oneself, tortures oneself fully, experiences the suffering caused by searching ... hate ... delusion ... conceit ... wrong views ..." > > ++++++ Dear scott and phil I think many people object to Khun sujin's ay of teaching as she would probably agree with Scott. It looks lazy and encouraging of akusala that she mainly stresses on development of wisdom and let panna itself understand the nature of akusala. But then how many sects do we see that believe in mortification of the body. Like the hare krishna I once met in Auckland who was handing out leaflets. He was gaunt, same age as me, had not had sex since he was a young man, lived on vegetables and was sure that all this made him more spiritual. To me it all looks like wrong view but, sure, it can increase physical endurance etc (temporarily). I kind of like physiscal challenges myself- now I swim around 10 kms a week and run even more- better than sitting in front of internet porno on the computer. But still I don't see these things as related to the path - whereas the hare krishna does. robert #98073 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 26, 2009 3:08 am Subject: Gethin's article on Killing (was: Abhidhamma article by I.B. Horner 1941 (plus killing with compassion?)) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, This was a typo I meant to correct before now: --- On Thu, 21/5/09, sarah abbott wrote: >Another article that was drawn to my attention recently was this one by Rupert Gethin one "Can a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion?" http://www.buddhist ethics.org/ 11/geth0401. pdf S: The title is: "Can *killing* a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion?" While I'm correcting the typo, here was an interesting passage from the commentary to the Vinaya, Samantapaasaadikaa, which discusses suitable comments to one in great pain and close to death: "Out of compassion: seeing that he was in great pain as a result of his illness, those monks felt compassion and, wanting his death yet not realizing that his death is what they wanted, spoke in praise of death, saying, “You are virtuous and have done wholesome deeds. Why should you be afraid of dying? For someone who is virtuous certainly the only thing that can follow from death is heaven.†And as a result of their praising death, that monk stopped taking his food and died prematurely. Therefore they committed the offence. But that they spoke in praise of death out of compassion is said by way of the common way of speaking. So even now a wise monk should not speak in praise of death like this to a sick monk. For if after hearing him praise [death] the sick monk makes the effort to stop taking food and as a result dies prematurely, even if all that remains to him of life is one process of impulsion, then it is he who has brought about the sick monk’s death. However, a sick monk should be given the following sort of instruction, “For one who is virtuous the path and fruit can arise unexpectedly, so forget your attachment to such things as the monastery, and establish mindfulness of the Buddha, Dhamma, Sam. gha and the body, and pay attention to [the manner of] bringing [things] to mind.†But even when death is praised, if the person makes no effort [to die] as a result of the praise and dies according to his own nature in accordance with his own life-span and the natural course of events, then for this reason the person who speaks in praise of death is not to be accused of an offence.45" ***** S: The reference given is Sp 464 and here are the first few lines of the Pali only: "kaary~n~nenaa ti te bhikkhuu tassa mahanta.m gela~n~na-dukkha.m disva kaaru~n~na.m uppaadetvaa siilava tva.m kata-kusalo, kasmaa miiyamaano bhaayasi, nanu siilavato saggo naama mara.na-matta-pa.tibaddho yevaa ti eva.m mara.natthikaa va huvaa mara.natthika-bhaava.m ajaanantaa mara.na-va.n.na.m sa.mva.n.nesum....." As Gethin indicates in his article, an understanding of Abhidhamma is essential for reading the Vinaya (and Suttanta), otherwise one can easily come to conclusions which misunderstand such texts, believing, for example, that there can be killing with (wholesome) compassion. In fact killing is always motivated by cittas rooted in dosa (aversion). I thought this passage was relevant to other commonly discussed threads here on DSG. Metta, Sarah ======== #98074 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 26, 2009 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The sixth door sarahprocter... Hi Alberto (& Ann), As usual, your comments are always deep... --- On Thu, 21/5/09, sprlrt wrote: >The series of seven javana cittas, kusala or akusala, arising in the five sense door processes are always preceeded by vipaka cittas, the result of past kamma, such as seeing... touching, cognizing visible object... tangible impinging on the corresponding sense door, itself the result of past kamma. >But in a mind door processes javana cittas are never preceeded by vipaka citta, i.e. they are unrelated to past kamma. ... S: The mind door javana cittas are not (immediately) preceeded by vipaka cittas and therefore not conditioned by them by way of anantara (proximity) condition. However, like in the case of the sense door javana cittas, they are still conditioned by past kamma (and vipaka cittas) by way of natural decisive support, for example. Also any of these objects, such as the vipaka cittas of seeing etc (or visible object etc ) can be a condition by way of object, even though it's the nimitta of the reality which is experienced in the mind-door process as you say. Many conditions being about each moment of kusala or akusala now, as you know. The main one, of course, is the natural decisive support condition which makes it possible for kamma (cetana)and all mental factors to 'accumulate'. .... A:> Mind door is a nama dhamma, citta and cetasika, including sa~n~na, the khandha that marks and remembers the object it, along with the other nama khandhas, experiences and, since it arises in all cittas, it marks and remembers all the objects, pa~n~natti included, that all cittas have experienced so far in this life, as well as those experienced in previous ones. The Atthasalini compares atta-sa~n~na to a young deer that mistakes a scarecrow for a man. ... S: I meant to re-quote this paragraph in my note to Ann about pa~n~natti (concepts) being included in the conditioning factors of natural decisive support condition. The above clearly indicates how this takes place. ... A:> Ditthi, arising with lobha and moha, (mis)takes dhammas for lasting selves and things, i.e. for pa~n~natti, which atta-sa~n~na marks and then remembers, providing, according to conditions, when it arises in bhavanga cittas (life continuum, the mind door interposing after each single vithi/process of cittas), the object that the cittas in the following mind door process cognize. >The objects that sa~n~na has marked and passes on to mind door processes are neither kusala nor akusala nor avyakata. They are, with the exeption of nibbana, nimitta, just signs, shadows and concepts of dhammas arisen and fallen away already. ... S: Nicely put - "just signs, shadows and concepts of dhammas", but still a condition for subsequent cittas to recall and experience again and again. No wonder there is so much useless thinking and dreaming about all kinds of pa~n~natti. I look forward to any further comments. Metta, Sarah ======= #98075 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Tue May 26, 2009 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Thu, 21/5/09, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: Anatta is a characteristic of all dhammas. In other words, it's not "a characteristic in its own right" to be known, divorced from such dhammas. The same applies to anicca and dukkha - they can only ever be known as "characteristics of dhammas". >>So, it is only by knowing the characteristic of visible object or hardness (to give a couple of examples), as dhammas, as rupas which can only ever be experienced, which can never experience objects themselves, that the nature of such dhammas can be known as anatta. ============ ========= ========= = H:> Saying that "not-self" is a property of things is like saying that not-square is a property of things. ... S: I personally wouldn't use the word 'property' to describe 'lakkhana' or 'sabhava'. I think there's a (subtle) distinction, but these are just words.... .... H:> It is true that a rainbow, for example, is not square. But there is no quality of a rainbow that is it's "not squareness." That is the point. When it is said that all conditioned phenomena are not self, that means EXACTLY that no conditioned dhammas are self. The assertion that they are not self is a denial, the assertion of the LACK of a feature. ... S: I don't really have a problem with this - OK, the 'feature' or 'characteristic' is 'the lack of a feature' - i.e the lack of any atta. Metta, Sarah ========== #98076 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 6:01 am Subject: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarahprocterabbott@... wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- On Thu, 21/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > >> S: Yes, I agree. The illusion is the 'self'. Anatta is the *real* characteristic of all dhammas. > > R:> I certainly agree with this. The question really is: What *is* the characteristic of anatta when it is perceived as a characteristic of a dhamma? > .... > S: Just the dhamma, just the dhatu, just the 'seeing' or 'visible object', no atta. Indeed, I am glad to hear that, because that is what I have been trying to say. Thanks. > .... > >If I can be bold enough to imagine what that might be like, imagine your example of hardness and experiencing it arising, sustaining and then passing away. One can imagine that the direct experience of this rising and passing of the hardness would directly reveal that there is no core, no self, in that play of "anicca," that there is merely the experience of hardness changing and then vanishing, and that this directly shows the characteristic of "not-self." In seeing this play of changes directly in the dhamma, one would be perfectly clear that no self of any kind comes into play and this would express the anatta characteristic of the hardness. > .... > S: I would put it the other way round and suggest that by understanding the hardness as just hardness, the characteristic of anatta becomes apparent. I would certainly not disagree with this. > As this understanding of the dhamma develops more precisely, the characteristic of anicca - the arising and passing of the hardness - is directly revealed and with it the unsatisfactoriness or dukkha of that element. This is also in line with my understanding. > .... > >Though I don't of course presently experience this on the micro-moment level, it is not impossible for me to imagine that this is how the inherent characteristic of anatta may be experienced. On the level of conceptual understanding, I have a hope that this is not totally off the mark. > ... > S: No, I don't think it's "totally off the mark" by any means. However, I think the understanding of the dhamma as anatta becomes clear first. The understanding of its impermanence only becomes apparent later (3rd stage of insight) after namas and rupas are clearly understood as namas and rupas and their conditioned nature has become apparent (and with that, no more doubts about such dhammas). Okay. Well I can imagine, as you suggest, that first would come seeing what something is, and later being able to watch it rise and fall in more detail, which would reveal the anicca more directly. > .... > >>S: I've appreciated all your discussions on this topic and your keen questioning: -). > > R:>Thank you; it is a topic that stretches the desire to see clearly; and I hope that is a positive thing. > ... > S: Yes, I think that continued questioning and considering in this way is very important. This is why such discussions are very helpful and listening/reading on its own is often not enough. > > Your comments and questions are many of us, Rob. > > Metta, > > Sarah Thanks Sarah. There is no doubt that having these conversations pushes my understanding in a way that just reading would not. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98077 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 6:13 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (07) kenhowardau Hi All, My question is slightly off topic, being more to do with the English language, but I have never understood how the word 'extension' was a synonym for 'solidity.' After doing an internet search and wading through some scientific texts on 'extension and solidity' I am still not sure. Does 'extension' simply mean 'the physical extent' of an object? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com , han tun wrote: > > > Dear All, > > This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. > Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements > . . . Earth, Water, Fire and Wind do not in this context have the same meaning as in conventional language, neither do they represent conceptual ideas as we find them in different philosophical systems. In the Abhidhamma they represent ultimate realities, specific rúpas each with their own characteristic. The element of earth, in PÃ¥li: paìhaví dhÃ¥tu, translated into English as 'solidity' or 'extension', has the characteristic of hardness or softness. #98078 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 7:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila philofillet Hi Scott I just sent an insanely long post in response to this as quoted by Robert K, but it hasn't shown up so perhaps it is (thankfully) disappeared. But probably not > More regarding: > > P: "...Failing to challenge unwholesome habits re sexual lust, such as using pornography, is inviting conditioning of such deeds..." > > Me: "I think that the above is a rather misdirected reading of the Dhamma as some sort of form of asceticism. I don't consider the Dhamma to be a mere treatise on 'self-control'. My take on what you describe is that, rather than the peaceful and quiet vibe that would accompany a moment of knowing lust as lust, you are finding instead more moments filled with anger and aversion with, apparently, a concept as object..." Ph: As I said in the other post, not to worry that I am turning into anti-sex freak, a flaggelist, that I am wrapped up in self-hatred, and anger about sexuality. It's not like that. When there is a fallback into behaviour which I (and the Buddha) feel to be harmful, there is reflection on anatta, on the accumulated tendency, there is some humour, there is some wisdom. There is no anger and not much aversion. But there is not riding along with it in comfort, as there has been in the past when I was a "every moment can be seen as perfectly instructive" Sujinist. > > Scott: In the Faultless Triplet section of the Pa.t.thaana, under "(vi) Faulty state is related to indeterminate state by strong-dependence condition" (vol. I, p. 163), is the following: > > "By the strong-dependence of lust, (one) tortures oneself, tortures oneself fully, experiences the suffering caused by searching ... hate ... delusion ... conceit ... wrong views ..." > > Pakatuupanissayo â€" raaga.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. Dosa.m ... pe ... moha.m ... pe ... maana.m ... pe ... di.t.thi.m ... pe ... patthana.m upanissaaya attaana.m aataapeti paritaapeti, pariyi.t.thimuulaka.m dukkha.m paccanubhoti. > Ph: Sorry, don't get the connection here, unless it is supporting what I say. The delusion that leads one to believe that sexual objects are truly pleasant is concealing a form of suffering, yes, but...I don't get it. But thanks. Metta, Phil p.s last post to you for a good little while as I disappear again. #98079 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 26, 2009 8:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] nilovg Dear Mike, Op 26-mei-2009, om 2:16 heeft m_nease het volgende geschreven: > I see no real justification in this (or elsewhere) for using > 'skillful' rather than 'good'. ------ N: Expositor, p. 48: First of all, the word 'kusala' (moral) means 'of good health", 'faultless', 'skilful'. 'productive of happy sentient results"... 'Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in singing and dancing, etc. -kusala means skilful.' This word conveys the meaning of training, one can train oneself, that is, accumulate kusala. Kh Sujin would say: it does not matter what word we use, but know the characteristic of kusala when it appears. This point is stressed by her again and again. Otherwise we get lost in a labyrinth of translations. Nina. #98080 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The sixth door sprlrt Hi Sarah, Ann > >But in a mind door processes javana cittas are never preceeded by vipaka citta, i.e. they are unrelated to past kamma. > ... > S: The mind door javana cittas are not (immediately) preceeded by vipaka cittas and therefore not conditioned by them by way of anantara (proximity) condition. However, like in the case of the sense door javana cittas, they are still conditioned by past kamma (and vipaka cittas) by way of natural decisive support, for example. I'm posting this from "Summary of the 24 paccaya" by K. Sujin, trans. by Amara-Varee (http://www.dhammastudy.com/paccaya.html), which IMO makes clear that past kamma is unrelated to javana cittas occurring in both sense and mind door processes. But a sense door process cannot occur without past kamma (cetana cetasika previously arisen in a javana citta, kusala or akusala), as paccaya for the arising of one of the 10 dvi-pañca-viññana (seeing... touching, the paccayuppanna of that kamma), while the occurrence of a mind door one is not triggered by a vipaka citta, the unavoidable result of past kamma, as main condition but, as you suggest, by pakatupanissaya paccaya, habitual strong dependence condition (i.e. accumulations); with anantara and anantarupanissaya paccaya, proximity strong dependence as main conditions for the (optional) tadalambana/registering vipaka citta closing the process/vithi. Alberto Appendix Precis of the 3 dhamma in the 24 paccaya: p.c. = paccaya-dhamma, the dhamma that is direct condition for results to arise (janaka-satti) or maintains and supports the existence of the resulting dhamma from itself and other paccaya (upathambhaka-satti): namely the 4 paramattha-dhamma and pannatti. p.y. = paccayuppanna-dhamma, the dhamma that results from the paccaya, namely all sankhara (3 of the paramattha-dhamma: 89 citta, 52 cetasika, and 28 rupa). p.n. =paccanika-dhamma, the dhamma that is opposed to paccayuppanna-dhamma (that which cannot be the result of the specific dhamma) or is opposed to some paccaya-dhamma. It comprises all sankhara-dhamma (the three paramattha-dhamma, namely 89 citta, 52 cetasika, and 28 rupa). Nibbana and pannatti do not arise therefore they are not the result of any paccaya whatsoever. Thus they are the paccanika-dhamma of all paccaya, (they could never be the paccayuppana of any paccaya.) ... 13. Kamma-paccaya ... 2. Nanakkhanika-kamma-paccaya p.c. :33 cetana-cetasika namely 21 kusala-cetana and 12 past akusala cetana that has fallen away. p.y. : 36 vipaka-citta, 38 cetasika, patisandhi-kammaja-rupa, asannisatta-kammaja-rupa and pavatti-kammaja-rupa. p.n. : 21 kusala-citta, 12 akusala-citta, 20 kiriya-citta, 52 cetasika and other rupa than the paccayupanna-dhamma. ... #98081 From: han tun Date: Tue May 26, 2009 11:07 am Subject: Reposting Physical Phenomena (07) hantun1 Dear All, I am reposting Physical Phenomena (07) using the convert pad for Velthuys text for Email. -------------------- Chapter 1 The Four Great Elements Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. Each of these groups is composed of different kinds of rúpa. There are four kinds of rúpa, the four “Great Elements†(MahÃ¥-bhúta rúpas), which have to arise together with each and every group of rúpas, no matter whether these are rúpas of the body or rúpas outside the body. The types of rúpa other than the four Great Elements depend on these four rúpas and cannot arise without them. They are the following rúpas: the Element of Earth or solidity the Element of Water or cohesion the Element of Fire or heat the Element of Wind (air) or motion Earth, Water, Fire and Wind do not in this context have the same meaning as in conventional language, neither do they represent conceptual ideas as we find them in different philosophical systems. In the Abhidhamma they represent ultimate realities, specific rúpas each with their own characteristic. The element of earth, in PÃ¥li: paìhaví dhÃ¥tu, translated into English as “solidity†or “extensionâ€, has the characteristic of hardness or softness. It can be directly experienced when we touch something hard or soft. We do not have to name the rúpa denoted by “element of earth†in order to experience it. It is an element that arises and falls away; it has no abiding substance, it is devoid of a “selfâ€. It may seem that hardness can last for some time, but in reality it falls away immediately. Rúpas are replaced so long as there are conditions for them to be produced by one of the four factors of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition . The hardness that is experienced now is already different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. -------------------- Let me see how it comes out. With metta, Han #98082 From: "Scott" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 11:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila scottduncan2 Dear Phil and Rob K, All, Regarding: Ph: "As I said in the other post, not to worry that I am turning into anti-sex freak, a flaggelist, that I am wrapped up in self-hatred, and anger about sexuality. It's not like that. When there is a fallback into behaviour which I (and the Buddha) feel to be harmful, there is reflection on anatta, on the accumulated tendency, there is some humour, there is some wisdom. There is no anger and not much aversion. But there is not riding along with it in comfort, as there has been in the past when I was a 'every moment can be seen as perfectly instructive' Sujinist...The delusion that leads one to believe that sexual objects are truly pleasant is concealing a form of suffering, yes, but...I don't get it." Rob K: "I think many people object to Khun Sujin's way of teaching as she would probably agree with Scott. It looks lazy and encouraging of akusala that she mainly stresses on development of wisdom and let panna itself understand the nature of akusala..." Scott: I've been wondering, first of all, whether 'sight of a beautiful woman', for a heterosexual man, would be considered as a moment of vipaaka. Technically, this is only visible object, because 'beautiful woman' is a concept which arises in the mind door long after colour is seen by eye-consciousness; beauty, as you know, is in the eye of the beholder. And the valuation by which vipaaka is said to be either kusala or akusala refers to what the ordinary person would consider pleasant or unpleasant, as I understand it. What do you think? Would this fit with your understanding of vipaaka? Ph: "p.s last post to you for a good little while as I disappear again." Scott: Yeah, um, talk to you in a little while, Phil. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #98083 From: "Scott" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 11:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila scottduncan2 Dear Phil and Rob K, All, Regarding: Me: "...And the valuation by which vipaaka is said to be either kusala or akusala refers to what the ordinary person would consider pleasant or unpleasant, as I understand it...." Scott: To be precise, vipaaka is an indeterminate state but is conditioned by either kusala or akusala kamma, I think. That's what I meant. Sincerely, Scott. #98084 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: siila philofillet Dear Robert My previous post to you has disappeared, but predictably you've pushed my button, so here goes another shorter one. If the other long one shows up, sorry for the waste of your time. > I think many people object to Khun sujin's ay of teaching as she would probably agree with Scott. It looks lazy and encouraging of akusala that she mainly stresses on development of wisdom and let panna itself understand the nature of akusala. But then how many sects do we see that believe in mortification of the body. Like the hare krishna I once met in Auckland who was handing out leaflets. He was gaunt, same age as me, had not had sex since he was a young man, lived on vegetables and was sure that all this made him more spiritual. To me it all looks like wrong view but, sure, it can increase physical endurance etc (temporarily). I kind of like physiscal challenges myself- now I swim around 10 kms a week and run even more- better than sitting in front of internet porno on the computer. But still I don't see these things as related to the path - whereas the hare krishna does. Phil: What on earth does a Krsna follower have to do with anything? You know, Robert, you have a habit of taking extreme examples to try to denigrate Buddhism as it is practiced in much more sensible ways than the examples you mention. I remember once you told me about a woman who wanted to walk around the Bodhi tree a certain number of times rather than discussing Dhamma with you. (It may have been that you were being bossy with her, mind you, and she just made up the part about wanting to walk around the tree in order to get away.) I don't know what Krsna has to do with what I was posting to Scott. I was not talking about mortification of the body, or extreme approaches to morality, or even taking celibacy vows, though I may be doing that someday. (With a proper amount of wanking for the health of the body.) I was saying that I believe that if one allows one's mind to run on with respect to sexual fantasizing, and fuels it further by using pornography, it is likely to lead to behaviour that harms oneself and others in ways that are explicitly warned of by the Buddha in the teaching of the ten akusala kamma patha. You have said that when one understands the anattaness of dhammas, the importance of knowing akusala from kusala gradually diminishes and instead "every moment becomes perfectly instructive." I hope that you are having many such moments, but I also hope for your sake that they do not including the accumulation of bad behaviour, such as rude and harsh speech, to begin with, and any other forms of immoral behaviour that all humans (some more than other) are prone to. Human rebirth is very rare, and should be valued greatly even if the practices one follows in order to do so involve subtle forms of wrong view such as aspiring to be a more peaceful, more moral person, etc. If one is reborn in a lower realm as a result of not challenging akusala rooted behaviour, one's appreciation of the anattaness of such behaviour will be moot,for panna will no longer be accompanying the cittas of whatever being has been born by a rebirth citta conditioned by behaviour in this life (very likely) or some past life. If one is relaxed about the accumulation of bad behaviour in body, speech and mind ("it has already fallen away", says K. Sujin when asked by a person who is concerned about transgression) because there is intellectual understanding of the annataness of the dhammas involved, that surely does not affect the conditioning powers of those dhammas at work in the behaviour. That kamma is still being planted no matter what insight one has afterwards into the anattaness of it. I think it is a grave error for her to talk off a person's concerns by saying "it has already fallen away." Anyways, good luck. I remember you once told me (when I was still in your good graces) that you would be making a point not to be friendly at DSG or other forums, in order to not encourage the spread of wrong Dhamma. I think intentionally being unfriendly is in itself wrong Dhamma. Try to be nicer to people if you can, take a look at Sarah and others, friendliness is not such a terrible thing you know. I think it would be a boon for everyone if you could participate in these forums in a more supportive, generous way, patient and helpful a la Nina, Sarah etc. I've wanted to say that to you for a long time, and now I say it. You have such a good knowledge of Dhamma, such a shame one has to get through a bully exterior to get to it. (Not referring in particular to this one post of yours, but the impression I have gained from reading hundreds here and elsewhere.) Sharing one's knowledge of Dhamma is a valuable form of Dana, you're not sharing it as generously as you could. I've heared Nina say that one should say what one thinks might be helpful to others even at the risk of being criticized for it, so there you go. I have said something to you that I have wanted to say for a long time. I think some element of it could prove to be helpful. Maybe I'll come back to DSG someday and find you participating in the extended, friendly way you did in the early years found in the archives. That would be such a huge boon to the discussion of Dhamma on the internet, because you are clearly one of the most knowledgeable, Dhamma-devoted people around. Metta, Phil #98085 From: "ajschrier" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:39 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena ajschrier Hi everyone, James wrote: I'm sure Einstein would have had some problems with this Abhidhamma theory of matter. Anyone with an introductory science class knows that temperature doesn't create matter, it is matter which creates temperature. Arjan: Actualy Einstein's E=mc2 signals that energy (which a word resembling utu) can "create" or rater IS matter and vice versa. The four elements are so much interdependent that the matter created by utu is there at the same time as the utu which created it. There is also some interesting stuff when you read his article on the brownian movement from 1905. Der Diffusionskoeffizient der suspendierten Substanz hängt also außer von universellen Konstanten und der absoluten Temperatur nur von Reibungskoeffizienten der flüssigkeit und von der größe der suspendierten Teilchen ab". Which translates about as: The difusioncoificient of the suspended substance is, apart from the universla constants, and the absolute temperature (in K) only dependent on the dragcoificient of the fluid and the size of the suspended particle. Difusion coificient is a measure of place change in time, (vayo ,wind element) The substance is form (pathavi, earth element) Temperature is utu, dragcoificient is wind element and size was mentioned. The water element or cohesion is the underlying cause of the dragcoificient. Water element is also rendered as the fluidity. Another big guy, Newton, mentioned wrote this in his Optics: "The changing of Bodies into Light and light into Bodies is very comfortable to the course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. Water which is a very fluid tastless Salt, she changes by Heat into Vapour, which is a sort of air and by cold into Ice which is a hard, pellucid, britle, fusible Stone". So these 4 elements are very real, thru the ages. And their changability too. Cheers, Arjan #98086 From: "Scott" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: siila scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Regarding: Ph: "...I believe that if one allows one's mind to run on with respect to sexual fantasizing, and fuels it further by using pornography, it is likely to lead to behaviour that harms oneself and others in ways that are explicitly warned of by the Buddha in the teaching of the ten akusala kamma patha..." Scott: The problem here is that one can neither allow nor not allow the mind to do anything. It is this very premise with which I disagree. I think that any idea that one has any control over the way the mind 'runs' is wrong at the outset. And anything one thinks based on this premise is also wrong. Ph: "...Human rebirth is very rare, and should be valued greatly even if the practices one follows in order to do so involve subtle forms of wrong view such as aspiring to be a more peaceful, more moral person, etc..." Scott: Again, here is an extension of the premise I consider to be faulty at the outset. No one follows any 'practises.' And I'm not sure that 'aspiring to be a more peaceful, more moral person' is all that 'subtle' as wrong view goes. There are dhammaa which, when ascendant, have peace and restraint as natural consequences. These cannot be wished into existence, but can be known. Ph: "...If one is reborn in a lower realm as a result of not challenging akusala rooted behaviour, one's appreciation of the anattaness of such behaviour will be moot,for panna will no longer be accompanying the cittas of whatever being has been born by a rebirth citta conditioned by behaviour in this life (very likely) or some past life. If one is relaxed about the accumulation of bad behaviour in body, speech and mind ('it has already fallen away', says K. Sujin when asked by a person who is concerned about transgression) because there is intellectual understanding of the anattaness of the dhammas involved, that surely does not affect the conditioning powers of those dhammas at work in the behaviour. That kamma is still being planted no matter what insight one has afterwards into the anattaness of it." Scott: And there is no one to do anything about it, no one to 'challenge' anything. If one thinks one is challenging anything at all then, I think, one is in error. The reason I think this is because there is no self; there is simply no Challenger to be found. That which is taken for self, in this case, is simply dhammaa arising due to conditions and having a certain 'flavour' which is then subsumed by view and taken for self. The person referred to above, who is said to be 'relaxed about the accumulation of bad behaviour', simply does not exist. Sincerely, Scott. #98087 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 26, 2009 12:53 pm Subject: [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 39. nilovg Dear friends, In the Visuddhimagga (I, 55) we read about the monk Mahå Tissa who met a woman when he was walking in the village. When she was smiling he saw her teeth and attained arahatship. We read: It seems that while the Elder was going on his way from Cetiyapabbata to Anurådhapura for alms, a certain daughter-in-law of a clan, who had quarrelled with her husband and had set out early from Anurådhapura all dressed up and tricked out like a celestial nymph to go to her relatives’ home, saw him on the road, and being low-minded, she laughed a loud laugh. (Wondering) “What is that?”, the Elder looked up, and finding in the bones of her teeth the perception of foulness (ugliness), he reached arahatship. Hence it was said: ‘He saw the bones that were her teeth, And kept in mind his first perception; And standing on that very spot The Elder became an arahat.’ But her husband who was going after her saw the Elder and asked, “Venerable sir, did you by any chance see a woman?” The Elder told him: “Whether it was a man or woman That went by I noticed not; But only that on this high road There goes a group of bones.” Did you note the Elder’s answer? Was he attached to concepts such as “man”, “woman”? Did he take what he perceived for self? He saw the body in the body; he was aware of realities. Because of his accumulated wisdom he did not take what he saw for a being, a “self ”– he only saw a group of bones, something foul. How often do we take for beautiful what is foul. He realized nåma and rúpa as they are and attained arahatship. Those who have developed both samatha and vipassanå may, when they have seen something foul, have jhånacittas which have foulness as their object. It depends on one’s accumulations whether or not jhånacittas arise. But in order to know things as they are, one should see the body in the body, feelings in the feelings, citta in citta, dhamma in dhamma. In other words, one should realize the true nature of the reality which appears at this moment. ****** Nina. #98088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 26, 2009 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: [Fwd: Vicikiccha] nilovg Dear Mike, Op 26-mei-2009, om 2:16 heeft m_nease het volgende geschreven: > I see no real justification in this (or elsewhere) for using > 'skillful' rather than 'good'. ------ N: My eye fell on the following in "Last Days of the Buddha", the co to the Parinibbaanasutta: ch III (p. 92): This is about Mara's request and the Buddha's answer about all his disciples who are skilled, disciplined, confident, learned. NIna. #98089 From: han tun Date: Tue May 26, 2009 1:18 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (07) hantun1 Dear Nina and Ken H, Ken wrote: My question is slightly off topic, being more to do with the English language, but I have never understood how the word [extension] was a synonym for [solidity.] After doing an internet search and wading through some scientific texts on [extension and solidity] I am still not sure. Does [extension] simply mean [the physical extent] of an object? [Han: I have replaced quotation marks with square brackets, because if I type quotation mark it is replaced by YahooGroups web-site with some un-readable characters.] I will try to reply to Ken H. If I am wrong, please correct me. Here, [extension] and [solidity] are not synonymous. As it is written in CMA, the word pathavi comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. Therefore, pathavi is translated as [extension]. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, and the function of acting as a foundation for the other primary elements and derived matter. It is in this context that the pathavi is translated as [solidity]. Yours truly, Han #98090 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 2:08 pm Subject: Re: adhimokkha szmicio Dear friends Nina's Cetasikas. Chapter 9: Viriya, energy or effort, is another cetasiika among the "particulars" which arises with cittas of the four jatis but not with every citta. The Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137) states concerning viriya : Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira). Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). Its finction is to consolidate conascent states (the accompanying citta and cetasikas). It is manifested as non-collapse. Because of the words "Bestirred, he strives wisely" (Gradual Saying II. I l5), its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly initiated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments. Viriya which is the root of all attainments is right effort, viriya accompanying kusala citta. Since viriya accompanies cittas of the four jatis, there is also akusala viriya, viriya accompanying vipakacitta and viriya accompanying kiriyacitta. ..... The Atthasalini then uses a simile of a small army which, if it goes to battle, might be repulsed. However, when they are supported by a strong reinforcement sent by the king, they can defeat the hostile army. We read: ... thus energy does not allow associated states to recede, to retreat; it uplifts, support them. Hence it has been said that energy has the characteristic of supporting. The word 'energy' as it is used in conventional language does not render the precise meaning of viriya. When we for example say that we are full of energy, what do we mean? Energy for what? Is it energy accompanying akusala citta or energy accompanying kusala citta? Besides, there are also vipakacittas and kiriyacittas which are accompanied by viriya, We are inclined to take energy for self, but energy is sankhara dhamma, a conditioned dhamma. Energy is conditioned by the citta and the other cetasikas it accompanies and thus there is a different kind of energy with different dttas. In order to have more understanding about viriya we should study which types of cittas it accompanies. We read in the Visuddhimagga that the function of viriya is to consolidate conascent states. Viriya strengthens, supports the citta and the other cetasikas it accompanies so that they can carry out their work and do not "collapse". Viriya accompanies every kusaIa citta and it supports the citta and accompanying cetasikas so that they can carry out their work in a whoIesome way. When there is loving kindness, it is strengthened and supported by kusala viriya. If there were no viriya accompanying the kusala citta, no kusala could be performed. Also when the citta is akusala citta, viriya accompanies the citta and the cetasikas so that they can carry out their work in the unwholesome way, Viriya accompanies every akusala citta. When there is anger, dosa, it is strengthened and supported by viriya. Viriya which accompanies akusala citta is wrong effort and viriya which accompanies kusala citta is right effort. Kusala viriya can be energy for dana, for sila, for samatha or for vipassana. It depends on conditions which type of kusala arises at a particular moment. If one wants, for example, to subdue defilements through the development of calm and one knows how to develop calm, there is energy and perseverance with the development of calm. If one's goal is knowing realities as they are there are conditions for energy for vipassana. This kind of energy or effort arises together with the citta which is mindful of a nama or rupa appearing now, at this moment. Right effort arises because of its own conditions; there is no self who can exert himself. When we have a notion of self who has to make an effort to be aware, there is wrong effort instead of right effort. Right effort is a conditioned dhamma, sankhara dhamma, which arises because of its own conditions. It does not last, it falls away immediately with the citta it accompanies and then wrong effort may arise. As we read in the definition of the Visuddhimagga, the proximate cause of viriya is "a sense of urgency or grounds for the initiation of energy'. Birth, old age and death can remind us of the urgency to develop right understanding which eventually will lead to freedom from the cycle of birth and death. When we are "urged" to be mindful of realities, there is no self who makes an effort to be mindful. Bight effort which is a reality arising because of its own conditions strengthens and supports the citta with mindfulness. There is energy, courage and perseverance to develop the eightfold Path since this is the only way leading to the end of dukkha. When there is mindfulness of visible object which appears now, seeing which appears now, sound which appears now, hearing which appears now, or any other reality which appears now, right undetstand of the eightfold Path is being developed and this is the most effective way to avoid akusala, to overcome it, to make kusala arise and to maintain kusala and bring it to perfection. At the moment of right mindfulness right effort performs its task of strengthening the kusala citta so that there is perseverance with the development of the eightfold Path. --------------- Best wishes Lukas #98091 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 26, 2009 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) nilovg Hi James, Op 26-mei-2009, om 2:29 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: I am going to delay further comments and judgements until we > get further into the book. At this point, I haven't gotten any type > of answer as to how temperature "causes" or "conditions" rupa. That > just doesn't fit in with what I know about science, the structure > of atoms, the forces of gravity, and the Theory of Relativity. I'm > sure Einstein would have had some problems with this Abhidhamma > theory of matter. Anyone with an introductory science class knows > that temperature doesn't create matter, it is matter which creates > temperature. -------- N: I sure understand what you mean. But as I said in my preface, the Abhidhamma is not a science book. Its goal is altogether different: it points to the eightfold Path leading to detachment from the idea of self, to the eradication of all unwholesomeness. If we do not keep in mind this goal we will meet a lot of difficulties in the study of the Abhidhamma. Thus, there are different angles of looking at the world in us and around us. Science has its own merit, and it is not denied by the Abhidhamma. But if we forget the goal of the Abhidhamma we shall miss the real meaning of what it teaches. We shall stumble over the meaning of the four Great Elements, the conditioning factors of rupas and so on. The Buddha used the terms of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind, but as we see so often, he gave them a different meaning. He thought of means to help people to reach the goal: less clinging to "my body" which only consists of elements. Even the term element obtains a different meaning: it is a reality devoid of self. Thus, contemplating elements will help us to cling less to self. Nina. #98092 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 26, 2009 9:05 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (07) kenhowardau Dear Han, That's a very informative reply, thank you. Experience has shown me that there are some things I just have to accept without understanding. Some things can be explained to me over and over again, and I still won't catch on. That's all right: as long as a know which questions to keep asking and which to stop. I am quite happy to know that this is one of the questions to stop asking. All will become clear when the time is right. :-) Ken H > Here, [extension] and [solidity] are not synonymous. As it is written in CMA, the word pathavi comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. Therefore, pathavi is translated as [extension]. > > The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, and the function of acting as a foundation for the other primary elements and derived matter. It is in this context that the pathavi is translated as [solidity]. #98093 From: han tun Date: Tue May 26, 2009 10:34 pm Subject: Physical Phenomena (08) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. Please note that I am using square brackets for quotation marks. If I type quotation mark, it appears in Email message as un-readable characters. -------------------- We used to think that a cushion or a chair could be experienced through touch. When we are more precise, it is hardness or softness that can be experienced through touch. Because of remembrance of former experiences we can think of a cushion or chair and we know that they are named [cushion] or [chair]. This example can remind us that there is a difference between ultimate realities and concepts we can think of but which are not real in the ultimate sense. Viewing the body and the things around us as different combinations of ruupas may be new to us. Gradually we shall realize that ruupas are not abstract categories, but that they are realities appearing in daily life. I shall quote the definitions of the different ruupas given by the [Visuddhimagga] and the [Atthasaalinii]. These definitions mention the characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause or immediate occasion [Note 1] of the ruupas that are explained. The [Visuddhimagga] (XI,93) [Note 2] gives, for example, the following definition of the ruupa that is the earth element or solidity: [...The earth element has the characteristic of hardness. Its function is to act as a foundation. It is manifested as receiving....] Note 1: The Atthasaalinii explains these terms in Book I, Part II, Analysis of terms, 63. Note 2: See also Dhammasanganii # 648, and Atthasaalinii II, Book II, Part I, Ch. III, 332. -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements to be continued. with metta, Han #98094 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >>S: This way we can see that it's not as simple as just thinking in terms of the last citta conditioning the next one, because there are so many other factors at work. It all helps break down the idea of a Self that is in control and can will any particular states to arise. R:> Good to see the mechanics at play, rather than taking credit for what takes place I guess. Hmn.... I can see how that would be helpful in eradicating the self-concept. .... S: Not just taking the credit for what occurs, but also the blame.... and that applies to other people and things as well.... Metta, Sarah ========== #98095 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 12:19 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >> S: The point is that there is only ever the 'striking' now. What arises now is in many complex ways (as we've been discussing in another thread) and includes all past 'strikes', but there is only ever the citta now, accompanied by various cetasikas, experiencing their object. .... R:>That is fine; I can understand that [to the extent that I can.] But what is important to me is that the present citta accesses "all past 'strikes'" as you say, in "complex ways." That is good enough for me! ... S: I wouldn's say the present citta "accesses" all past 'strikes', in that all past 'strikes' have completely fallen away. However, the present citta (and accompanying factors) *is conditioned* by all past 'strikes'. ... R:> I just don't want infinite strikes to have to take place either simeoltaneously or sequentially all within one single moment. Yes, the whole accumulated result shows up in a single moment; that I can understand. .... S: Don't worry! One 'strike' at a time, one moment at a time. Yes, the accumulation shows up in a single moment.....now we're really getting somewhere! ... > .... >>> R:> Although the whole world rises and falls in each moment, the thousands of processes and lifetimes of accumulations do not take place in each single moment. > ... >> S: Well, in an ultimate sense they do - one single moment at a time. So now, if there is thinking about past accumulations, the reality is just the present moment, the present thinking, like the point where the chariot wheel touches the ground. R:>Yes, I think there are two separate points: how things take place, and how they are seen. You are pointing out that we need to see what is happening now, and see that it is only there for us now. Only this moment is available at all. That is a profound and important truth. On the other hand, it is important, I think, to have a "correct concept" of how things develop and accumulate, even if we can only directly see the "part that is touching the ground" right now. To know that it is part of a whole wheel may also have some importance. .... S: Yes, fine. ... >> S: I think the purpose of understanding that there is only the reality 'now' is for the purpose of developing more understanding of what is real and appears now. R:> Good enough. I just don't want that to be a reason to have a false concept about something like vitakka. Those repeated beatings were really bugging me! :-( .... S: OK, hope all's clear and there are no more bugs (or bug-bears crossing the jogging path, ha!). .... >>S: Usually we're lost in thoughts about the past and future without any understanding of the present realities. I don't think there is any conflict with the understanding that there are processes and accumulations from aeons past. R:>Yes, that is the balance that I am looking for. Not to get lost in concepts and thoughts that distract from what is happening now, but also not to dismiss the understanding of the processes and accumulations that are taking shape. ... S: Cool (as Scott might say)! ... > R:> So each time "the world arises" for that single moment, the content of that moment is quite different from the one before it. The single moment contains all of reality as it stands for that one moment, but when the next moment arises, it accesses and builds on the moment before. > ... > S: Yes, I agree with the gist, though I'd put it a little differently - > 'Each time "the world arises" in a single moment, the consciousness and associated factors are quite different from the one before it. At that single moment of consciousness, there is no other consciousness and when the next moment of consciousness arises, it is conditioned by the previous one and many other past and present conditioning factors.' R:>That sounds good. .... S: This is easy....:) .... >>S: So the understanding of the path all comes down to the understanding of the reality now appearing, whether that be visible object, sound, thinking or any other dhamma. > >> Actually, I think we're pretty much agreed here. I understand your point and I think it's just a matter of emphasis when we say there's just the present moment. R:> Yes, and I can understand why you want to emphasize the present moment - that's where the action is. ... S: Great, roll on the action:) Metta, Sarah ========== #98096 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 27, 2009 1:16 am Subject: summer olympics? nichiconn dear herman & friends, lol... "Buddhist Games" including dharma dancing & PINBALL (yEs!!) of all things... but look! heaven must be second up from the bottom: abhidhamma puzzle! so simple a seven year old could master & I don't begin to get. so, yeah, let's have another handful of code crackers. http://www.dharmagames.org/ peace, connie #98097 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Exquisite Bliss! sarahprocter... Dear Ven Samahita & Friends, --- On Mon, 25/5/09, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: >Mental Dhamma-Medicine! Of all the Medicines in the world, even & ever so numerous & different none is comparable to this Dhamma. Therefore, friends, take this Dhamma. >Having swallowed & digested this sublime Dhamma Medicine, you will go beyond ageing & death. You will be freed & cured of all Craving. .... S: I was interested to check the link for these verses as we often discuss Dhamma as being the best medicine here. >Adapted from Gemstones of Good Dhamma Wheel 342/344 Ven. S. Dhammika, ..... S: This is what I found and would like to share: >Dhammavagga (Dhamma) 14. Ye keci osadha loke vijjanti vividha bahu dhammosadhasamam na'tthi etam pivatha bhikkhavo. Of all the medicines in the world, manifold and various, there is none like the medicine of Dhamma: therefore, O monks, drink of this. 15. Dhammosadham pivitvana ajaramarana siyum bhavayitva ca passitva nibbuta upadhikkhaye. Having drunk this Dhamma medicine, you will be ageless and beyond death; having developed and seen the truth, you will be quenched, free from craving. ..... S: So let's keep drinking the Dhamma medicine! Metta, Sarah ====== #98098 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, (Jon,Rob Ep & all), --- On Mon, 25/5/09, sprlrt wrote: >PS In one of her tapes KS describes advanced stages of satipatthana on the lines of ... there is something then nothing then something again then nothing again then.... ... S: I think this refers to the role of the bhavanga cittas in between the processes of sense and mind-door cittas as you've described before. There is visible object appearing to seeing (and the sense door cittas), then thre is nothing appearing at the moments of the bhavanga cittas, then there are the vithi cittas again experiencing their object through a doorway. You already pointed to this. As you say, it's only clear at 'advanced stages of satipatthana', when the arising and falling away of dhammas is apparent. Metta, Sarah ======== #98099 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (11-12) sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- On Mon, 25/5/09, Scott wrote: >Scott: No, Sarah, I don't see what Walshe was wanting to suggest here. These words - kamma and rebirth - refer to paramattha dhammaa and the conditions by which they operate, as far as I understand. The above seems to reflect Walshe's idiosyncratic view regarding the nature of lokuttara dhammaa. >I'd have thought that the 'validity' of the 'doctrine of karma and rebirth' rested on the fact that the expressions of conventional truth accurately reflect the underlying realities. 'Conventional truth' would still be 'truth', wouldn't it? .... S: Yes, especially with regard to the Dhamma. ... >If there is any 'liberating ourselves from the viewpoint of conventional truth' - which I don't really follow - this would, of necessity, be a function of the penetrative realisations of highly developed pa~n~naa in relation to paramattha dhammaa. The Buddha was fully enlightened and yet taught using conventional truth. >I don't think that 'conventional truth' is what one finds liberation from. One would not be confused by the two modes of reference, however. .... S: Yes, just my thoughts. He seemed to start off on the right track discussing the two truths, but somehow miss the essential point that liberation has nothing to do with conventional anythings. Often it indicates a lack of confidence in the development of pa~n~naa when there's a suggestion that kamma, as an example, refers to something conventional. Again, as Gethin stressed in the article I gave a link to, without some understanding of the Abhidhamma, it's easy to think of terms such as kamma and rebirth as pointing to mere conventional truths. Glad to clarify.... Metta, Sarah =========== #98100 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (05) sarahprocter... Hi James (& Han), --- On Sun, 24/5/09, buddhatrue wrote: >Additionally, if everything we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell is the result of our good or bad kamma, doesn't that mean that there is some sort of relationship between one's individual kamma and outside rupas? I don't get that either. ... S: I think you raise a good and important point, James and I'd like to add a few reflections... You are actually pointing to the 'coming together' of the ayatanas (sense bases). Usually, these 'outside' rupas are rising and falling away in kalapas all the time and never experienced. For example, all the rupas in the forest or our homes are rising and falling away regardless of whether there is any experience of them or not. At a moment of seeing consciousness, the result of past kamma as you rightly say, a visible object rupa has been contacted with eye-sense as basis. There is the 'coming together' of the outside rupa with the inside rupa (eye-sense), the inside seeing consciousness and the accompanying mental factors, such as contact. This is why we read again and again in the suttas about the coming together of the inner and outer ayatanas. As Howard quoted recently, from MN 148 Chachakka Sutta: "Dependent on the eye and forms there arises consciousness of the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain." Understanding these various dhammas, is "the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification...." So the outside rupas have their particular condition for arising (i.e temperature), the seeing consciousnes and eye-sense have their particular condition for arising (past kamma), but by a complex interaction of these conditions, such dhammas 'come together' momentarily. They "balance like seeds on needle points." (Vism XX, 72). I'm glad to see your helpful comments & qus. Metta, Sarah ======== #98101 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed May 27, 2009 4:20 am Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > > >>S: This way we can see that it's not as simple as just thinking in terms of the last citta conditioning the next one, because there are so many other factors at work. It all helps break down the idea of a Self that is in control and can will any particular states to arise. > > R:> Good to see the mechanics at play, rather than taking credit for what takes place I guess. Hmn.... I can see how that would be helpful in eradicating the self-concept. > .... > S: Not just taking the credit for what occurs, but also the blame.... and that applies to other people and things as well.... Well, I will be happy to let go of the blame, anyway. After that I will work on letting go of taking credit, and finally I may let go of blaming others. :-) Best, Robert E. == = = = = = = #98102 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] summer olympics? sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- On Wed, 27/5/09, connie wrote: >dear herman & friends, lol... "Buddhist Games" including dharma dancing & PINBALL (yEs!!) of all things... but look! heaven must be second up from the bottom: abhidhamma puzzle! so simple a seven year old could master & I don't begin to get. so, yeah, let's have another handful of code crackers. http://www.dharmaga mes.org/ .... S: I'd been wondering where your nose was buried and see it's at the local games hall, lol indeed! Looks fun, don't forget to send us a message from time to time, to let us know how you're getting on with the PINBALL and Abhi-puzzle if nothing else! Have you heard from Herman or was it that you just thought the Games were his (particular) idea of fun? How do you come across such sites? Do you have a google alert for 'Dhamma and Fun'? (No need to answer if you're truly ensnared:-)). Metta, Sarah p.s Meanwhile I've decided that our modest room adjoining the garden here in Suva is rather like my kuti living in the temple in Sri Lanka all those years ago....lots of forest storms, birds, clouds, stars.... Much the same 'perfect' meditation opportunities as in the kuti or back in Hong Kong, the Seattle cellar or anywhere else, for that matter:). Howz the leg doing back at work? ======= #98103 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed May 27, 2009 4:27 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > >> S: The point is that there is only ever the 'striking' now. What arises now is in many complex ways (as we've been discussing in another thread) and includes all past 'strikes', but there is only ever the citta now, accompanied by various cetasikas, experiencing their object. > .... > R:>That is fine; I can understand that [to the extent that I can.] But what is important to me is that the present citta accesses "all past 'strikes'" as you say, in "complex ways." That is good enough for me! > ... > S: I wouldn's say the present citta "accesses" all past 'strikes', in that all past 'strikes' have completely fallen away. However, the present citta (and accompanying factors) *is conditioned* by all past 'strikes'. I am assuming that "conditioning" includes its having a "knowing" of the content or discoveries of those "past strikes" so that it is wiser than the preceding cittas by having the accumulated information "up to the moment" so to speak. > ... > > R:> I just don't want infinite strikes to have to take place either simeoltaneously or sequentially all within one single moment. Yes, the whole accumulated result shows up in a single moment; that I can understand. > .... > S: Don't worry! One 'strike' at a time, one moment at a time. Yes, the accumulation shows up in a single moment.....now we're really getting somewhere! Ha ha, or getting nowhere fast! Where is there to go? Just being silly... > ... > >> S: I think the purpose of understanding that there is only the reality 'now' is for the purpose of developing more understanding of what is real and appears now. > > R:> Good enough. I just don't want that to be a reason to have a false concept about something like vitakka. Those repeated beatings were really bugging me! :-( > .... > S: OK, hope all's clear and there are no more bugs (or bug-bears crossing the jogging path, ha!). :-) As long as I can avoid future beatings I should be fine. > .... > > >>S: Usually we're lost in thoughts about the past and future without any understanding of the present realities. I don't think there is any conflict with the understanding that there are processes and accumulations from aeons past. > > R:>Yes, that is the balance that I am looking for. Not to get lost in concepts and thoughts that distract from what is happening now, but also not to dismiss the understanding of the processes and accumulations that are taking shape. > ... > S: Cool (as Scott might say)! :-) > ... > > R:> So each time "the world arises" for that single moment, the content of that moment is quite different from the one before it. The single moment contains all of reality as it stands for that one moment, but when the next moment arises, it accesses and builds on the moment before. > > ... > > S: Yes, I agree with the gist, though I'd put it a little differently - > > 'Each time "the world arises" in a single moment, the consciousness and associated factors are quite different from the one before it. At that single moment of consciousness, there is no other consciousness and when the next moment of consciousness arises, it is conditioned by the previous one and many other past and present conditioning factors.' Okay. > > R:>That sounds good. > .... > S: This is easy....:) > .... > > >>S: So the understanding of the path all comes down to the understanding of the reality now appearing, whether that be visible object, sound, thinking or any other dhamma. > > > >> Actually, I think we're pretty much agreed here. I understand your point and I think it's just a matter of emphasis when we say there's just the present moment. > > R:> Yes, and I can understand why you want to emphasize the present moment - that's where the action is. > ... > S: Great, roll on the action:) :) Thanks for the clarifications! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98104 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 27, 2009 4:56 am Subject: K.Sujin in Sri Lanka 77 (1) - Meditation sarahprocter... Dear Friends, These were Ajahn Sujin's opening words at the seminars in Colombo, April 1977. ======= Sujin: >I would like you all to think about the reality of meditation because if we'd like to do something, we should have some understanding about it first. So what is the reality of meditation? To my understanding, it's the development of tranquillity or of insight. It depends, because there are two different types of meditation. Before the enlightenment of the Buddha, people who would like to eradicate their unwholesomeness tried very, very hard to find a way to eradicate their unwholesomeness, but since they were not the Sammasambuddha, they couldn't find a way. So [the most] they could do was to develop the citta which is wholesome with tranquillity from concentration until the mind is very concentrated, that it is the absorption concentration. But that is not the eradication of unwholesomeness, it's only the suppression of the unwholesomeness and after the enlightenment of the Buddha, he taught us about another way. That is to develop right understanding of realities which appear. If one still has ignorance about reality which appears, it conditions the idea of self because when one sees, deep in ones mind, even [though] one does not say anything [such as] 'I'm seeing', deep in one's mind who is seeing? 'I' all the time. 'I see, I hear, I think, I'm wholesome, I'm unwholesome.' The way to develop right understanding is to have some intellectual understanding of the path first. The Buddha pointed out that there is only one path which is the eight-fold path and he called it sati-pa.t.thaana, not samaadhi-pa.t.thaana, not phassa-pa.t.thaana, not sa~n~naa-pa.t.thaana, not cetana-pa.t.thaana. So it does not depend on cetana or volition. It does not depend on concentration which is samaadhi, but it depends on sati. If there is no understanadng about the characteristic of sati yet, that person cannot develop satipa.t.thaana, because no matter it is the tranquil meditation or insight meditation, it has to be done with right understanding. Without right understanding, one might think that one is now developing kusala, but it can be the accumulation of akusala instead because there is no right understanding to see what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. So the question might be: 'what is right understanding and what is the object of right understanding?' in order to develop satipa.t.thaana. ***** Comments welcome! Metta, Sarah ====== #98105 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 27, 2009 7:25 am Subject: [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 40 nilovg Dear friends, The Visuddhimagga explains, just before the passage about Mahå Tissa, the virtue of restraint of the faculties (indriya-sa.mvara-síla). There is this kind of síla when there is mindfulness of realities appearing through the six doors. When there is mindfulness and understanding of the objects experienced through the six doors these doors are “guarded” against akusala. The Visuddhimagga states: “He apprehends what is really there…” Do we “apprehend what is really there”, or do we have wrong view? Do we take realities for permanent and for self instead of being mindful of them? We do not have to refrain from thinking about concepts but there can be less clinging to them. When we think of concepts such as “man” or “woman” we can remember that thinking is a reality which can be object of mindfulness. It is only a kind of nåma arising because of conditions, not self. It is because of saññå that we remember that this is a man and that a woman. Whatever reality is the object of mindfulness depends on sati, not on a self. The Elder, because of his accumulations, did not notice a woman, but there was the perception of foulness and then he realized things as they are. In that way he was not absorbed in the idea of a woman, akusala cittas did not arise on account of what was seen. However, even the thinking of a woman who smiles can be the object of awareness, and after that enlightenment can be attained if paññå has been developed to that extent. ******* Nina #98106 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 27, 2009 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] K.Sujin in Sri Lanka 77 (1) - Meditation nilovg Dear Sarah, I am so glad to see this old tape. This is probably one of those that Khun Kampan rearranged for you. As relevant as ever. Nina. Op 27-mei-2009, om 6:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > These were Ajahn Sujin's opening words at the seminars in Colombo, > April 1977. #98107 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 27, 2009 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bhavanga, was: Alteration within a single moment nilovg Dear Sarah and Alberto, Op 27-mei-2009, om 4:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > In one of her tapes KS describes advanced stages of satipatthana on > the lines of > ... there is something then nothing then something again then > nothing again then.... > ... > S: I think this refers to the role of the bhavanga cittas in > between the processes of sense and mind-door cittas as you've > described before. ------- N:Just this morning I heard about bhavangacittas. Someone asked whether the sotaapanna can know the bhavangacitta. Kh Sujin answered, no, before that. Through awareness and direct understanding it can be known when a characteristic of a reality appears and when it does not appear. As Alberto described before; the bhavangacitta does not experience an object impinging on one of the six doorways. It has its own object, the same as the object of the rebirth-consciousness and this is not known. It does not appear. Nina. #98108 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 27, 2009 8:23 am Subject: Dhamma with Khun Bong, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn: In the case of visible object and seeing, there are two different kinds of realities: the reality which is the ruupa that appears and the reality that experiences what appears. Those who have not heard the Dhamma cannot answer the question of ‘what appears now?’ There is an element that experiences what appears, that sees. Is that us? We cannot prevent visible object from being seen; it has arisen already and appears. We cannot prevent it from appearing. This is the meaning of anattaa. Everything is dhamma, there is no need to look for it. At this moment dhamma is there already, it has already arisen. We study in order to understand what is real. We use words in order to distinguish different realities from one another. We use words for what appears now. The ruupa that appears now does not know anything, it does not think or remember. We use the term ruupa-dhamma in order to denote the characteristic of ruupa: it does not see or think, but it is real. Sound is not a reality that knows something but it is real. ****** Nina. #98109 From: han tun Date: Thu May 28, 2009 1:01 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (09) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. Please note that I am using square brackets for quotation marks. If I type quotation mark, it appears in Email message as un-readable characters. -------------------- Each reality has its own individual characteristic by which it can be distinguished from other realities. The earth element or solidity has hardness (or softness) as characteristic, the fire element has heat as characteristic. Such characteristics can be experienced when they appear. As to function, ruupas have functions in relation to other ruupas or in relation to naama. Solidity acts as a foundation, namely for the other ruupas it arises together with in a group; that is its function. Smell, for example, could not arise alone, it needs solidity as foundation. It is the same with visible object or colour that can be experienced through the eyesense. Visible object or colour needs solidity as foundation or support, it could not arise alone. Solidity that arises together with visible object cannot be seen, only visible object can be seen. As regards manifestation, this is the way a reality habitually appears. Solidity is manifested as receiving, it receives the other ruupas it arises together with since it acts as their foundation. With regard to the proximate cause, according to the [Visuddhimagga] (XIV, 35) each of the four Great Elements has the other three as its proximate cause. The four Great Elements arise together and condition one another. -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements to be continued. with metta, Han Ps. For those who do not have the book, Visuddhimagga, please see below. Visuddhimagga XIV, 35: Herein (a) primary materiality is of four kinds as the earth element, water element, fire element, and air element. Their characteristic, function, and manifestation have been given under the definition of the four elements (XI, 87, 93); but as to the proximate cause, each has the other three as its proximate cause. Visuddhimagga XI, 87: 1. Herein, one who gives his attention to them as to word meaning should do so separately and generally thus: [separately] it is earth (pathavii) because it is spread out (pattha.ta); it flows (appoti) or it glides (aapiyati) or it satisfies (appaayati), thus it is water (aapo); it heats (tejati), thus it is fire (tejo); it blows (vaayati), thus it is air (vaayo). But without differentiation they are elements (dhaatu) because of bearing (dhaara.na) their own characteristic, because of grasping (aadaana) suffering, and because of sorting out (aadhaana) suffering. This is how they should be given attention as to word meaning. Visuddhimagga XI, 93: 4. As to characteristic, etc.: he should advert to the four elements in this way: [The earth element: what are its characteristic, function, manifestation?] and defining them in this way: The earth element has the characteristic of hardness. Its function is to act as a foundation. It is manifested as receiving. The water element has the characteristic of trickling. Its function is to intensify. It is manifested as holding together. The fire element has the characteristic of heat. Its function is to mature (maintain). It is manifested as a continued supply of softness. The air element has the characteristic of distending. Its function is to cause motion. It is manifested as conveying. This is how they should be given attention by characteristic, and so on. =========== #98110 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 27, 2009 10:44 pm Subject: NEVER KILL! bhikkhu.sama... The Very First Lesson: The Blessed Buddha once said: PÄnam na hane na ca ghÄtayeyya, na cÄnujaÃ±Ã±Ä hanatam paresam, sabbesu bhÅ«tesu nidhÄya dandam. Ye thÄvarÄ ye ca tasÄ santi loke. One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe! Sutta NipÄta 2.396 Have a nice harmless day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://groups.google.com/group/What_Buddha_Said NEVER KILL! May all Beings become Happy thereby! #98111 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 28, 2009 4:32 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (13-14) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing from #97948 Fours (11-12) (cy: #98009, #98053): CSCD 311. <ti. Dhamme aveccappasaadena samannaagato hoti - ti. Sa'nghe aveccappasaadena samannaagato hoti - ti. Ariyakantehi siilehi samannaagato hoti akha.n.dehi acchiddehi asabalehi akammaasehi bhujissehi vi~n~nuppasatthehi aparaama.t.thehi samaadhisa.mvattanikehi. Walshe DN 33.1.11(14) 'Four characteristics of a Stream-Winner: Here, the Ariyan disciple is possessed of unwavring confidence in the Buddha, thus: "This Blessed Lord is an Arahant, a fully-enlightened Buddha, endowed with wisdom and conduct, the Well-Farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer or men to be tamed, Teachers of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed." (b) He is possessed of unwavering confidence in the Dhamma, thus: "Well-proclaimed by the Lord is the Dhamma, visible here and now, timeless, inviting inspection, leading onward, to be comprehended by the wise each one for himself." (c) He is possessed of unwavering confidence in the Sangha, thus: "Well-directed is the Sangha of the Lord's disciples, of upright conduct, on the right path, on the perfect path; that is to say the four pairs of persons, the eight kinds of men. The Sangha of the Lord's disciples is worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of veneration, an unsurpassed field of merit in the world." And (d) he is possessed of morality dear to the Noble Ones, unbroken, without defect, unspotted, without inconsistency, liberating, praised by the wise, uncorrupted, and conducive to concentration. Olds [4.14 ] Four characteristics of the Streamwinner[ 4.14 ]: Here friends the hearer of the aristocrats has got complete confidence in the Buddha along such lines as: 'This Lucky Man is the Arahant Number One Self-Awakened One, perfected in conduct and vision, The Welcome One, a knower of the world, unsurpassable trainer of trainable men, teacher of gods and man, The Buddha, The Lucky Man.' He has complete confidence in the Dhamma along such lines as: 'The Dhamma is well said by the Lucky Man, visible for one's self here, not a thing of Time, a 'come'n-see' thing, a thing that guides the intelligent in understanding for themselves.' He has complete confidence in the Sangha[ 4.14.1 ] along such lines as: 'The Bhagava's Order of the Hearers is undertaking the good, The Bhagava's Order of the Hearers is undertaking the straight, The Bhagava's Order of the Hearers is undertaking the method, The Bhagava's Order of the Hearers is undertaking the highest; The four pairs of men, the eight individual men -- this is the Bhagava's Order of the Hearers that is worthy of offerings, that are worthy guests, worthy of the gifts of those wishing to make good kamma, worthy of the jesture of putting together the fingers of both hands and stretching them forth to the sky and bringing them to the forehead, a site unsurpassed in the world for sewing merit. He comes to be one who goes after getting that intact, unrent, unspotted, unbruised, unwarped, praised by the wise, uncorrupted, ethical culture that evolves into highetting that is enjoyed by the Aristocrats.[ 4.14.2 ] RDs [ 4.14 ] Four factors of his state who has attained the stream. Herein, brethren, the Ariyan disciple has an unshakeable faith (1) in theBuddha:--'So he too, the Exalted One, is Arahant, supremely enlightened, full of wisdom and goodness, Blessed One, world-knower, peerless driver and tamer of men, teacher of devas and men, Buddha, Exalted One!' (2) in the Norm:--Well proclaimed by the Exalted One is the Norm, effective in this life and without delay, bidding us come and see, leading us onward, to be known by the wise as a personal experience. (3) in the Order:-- Well practised is the Order of the Exalted One's disciples, in uprightness, method and propriety, namely, the four pairs of persons, the eight classes of individuals. Thi is the Order of the Exalted One's disciples, to whom offerings and ministering should be made, and gifts and reverent greeting as unto the supreme field of merit throughout the world. (4) Endowed is it withvirtues lovely to the Ariyans, unbroken and flawless, consistently practised, unblemished, making men free, commended by the wise, unperverted and conducing torapt concentration.4.14 **olds: [ 4.14 ]{snip} saavaka: PED says: "a hearer, disciple (never an Arahant", but note the case here. See also: The Four Pairs of Powerful Individuals [ 4.14.1 ] Sa'ngha: The wording for this "characteristic" reflects my understanding based on the idea: "It is not by wearing yellow robes that one is near to me [the Buddha]" (or is worthy to be called a bhikkhu, or a member of the Sangha). It is by intent and conduct and attainment that one is worthy of such. The description of the hand jesure in the Pali is covered by the phrase "a~njali-kara.niiyo;" I didn't think it would hurt to have a full description for the benefit of those of us in the west who may be unfamiliar with this reverential form of greeting. On this also see Bhikkhu Bodhi: Going for Refuge on Access to Insight (scroll down): ". . . the order of monks is not itself the Sangha which takes the position of the third refuge. The Sangha which serves as refuge is not an institutional body but an unchartered spiritual community comprising all those who have achieved penetration of the innermost meaning of the Buddha's teaching. The Sangha-refuge is the ariyan Sangha, the noble community, made up exclusively of ariyans, person of superior spiritual stature. Its membership is not bound together by formal ecclesiastical ties but by the invisible bond of a common inward realization. The one requirement for admission is the attainment of this realization, which in itself is sufficient to grant entrance." [ 4.14.2 ] The way I read Rhys Davids, Walshe and most other translators is that the string of descriptive terms is to apply to the way the streamwinner practices ethical culture. I have them describing the nature of the ethical culture he strives after attaining. I here put forward two arguments for my interpretation: 1. The string of terms includes two (vi~n~nuuppasatthehi --praised by the wise (there is some doubt about the meaning of this word; it could also mean undisturbed)-- and samaadhi-sa'nvattanikehi --that evolves into highgetting) that seem to me to not apply to the practitioner but to the ethical culture itself, and 2. It is clear from numerous passages in the Suttas that the Streamwinner may not have fully developed such perfection in his behavior. The big advantage of becoming a streamwinner that is put out there (and which one is perperported to be abel to see for one's self) is the fact that one will not backlslide to such a degree that one will perform any act (thought, word, or deed) that will result in rebirth in Hell, as a Demon or as an Animal. There are passages that state that even one with no greater personal development than what we can assume is unreasoned (but steadfast) faith in the Buddha can be called a Streamwinner. Once again this is not being said here by me in any effort to weaken the importance of perfecting one's self in ethical culture, but to eliminate the discouragement of those who are doing their best and occasionally fall short. Maybe I am "Talking my Position," as they say on Wall Street. I will leave that for the reader to decide. ***rd: 4.14Cf. II, 100 peace, connie, Scott, Nina #98112 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 28, 2009 4:33 am Subject: summer olympics? nichiconn dear Sarah, S: Have you heard from Herman or was it that you just thought the Games were his (particular) idea of fun? How do you come across such sites? Do you have a google alert for 'Dhamma and Fun'? (No need to answer if you're truly ensnared:-)). C: nah, just tend to think of different folk from time to time; Herman esp when "cracking the code" and quarks've both been riding my thought trains. Dragonflies & Joop when you mentioned the kuti. hmm... i'll have to see what google alert is... meanwhile, i just like throwing their shark abhidhamma tidbits and seeing what comes up. The game room i just ducked into off someone's links page & thought no point in waiting to share something fun-looking until i'd (if ever!) checked out some of the games "for the grandkids". Their father's & my own concerns over what he calls my brainwashing them might seem to run in somewhat different directions (dhaRma, i scowl?!) but there's always common ground & "we associate with the idea" (TA on being a good friend). S: {snip} Howz the leg doing back at work? C: O, well, you know, it does come back home with me and we've both just had three days off from that part-time metta-tation resort. But good, thanks. peace, connie #98113 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu May 28, 2009 5:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Book Recommendation/RobK (and all) - rjkjp1 -- Hi howard I saw this on the web and thought you might find it interesting too: The founder of Rinzai Zen, Lin Chi, taught: "When it's time to get dressed, put on your clothes. When you must walk, then walk. When you must sit, then sit. Just be your ordinary self in ordinary life, unconcerned in seeking for Buddhahood. When you're tired, lie down. The fool will laugh at you but the wise man will understand." best Robert - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 4/16/2009 4:35:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > rjkjp1@... writes: > > -thanks howard > Could you tell us why you like it and why I might like it? > best > robert-- > ========================== > Well, as I said, I'm only a bit into the book. As for why I like it > (so far), and why I think you and some others here may as well: It emphasizes > a sort of "non-doing doing" or wu-wei. I think of it as a kind of a direct > pointing to the mind described in the Pabhassara Sutta that I copy at the > end of this post. It also seems to describe that "unborn" as neither > internal nor external, and it seems to me to be expressive of at least an aspect > of nibbana. A bit more as to why I thought it might hold some appeal for > you is that you had some Zen background, and this sort of Zen isn't the "big > self" Zen that I consider barely Buddhist, but is more of a sort that would > harmonize with the "natural," non-self and non-doing flavor that I detect > in some of the writings of Khun Sujin. > > #98114 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 28, 2009 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Book Recommendation/RobK (and all) - upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/28/2009 1:49:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Hi howard I saw this on the web and thought you might find it interesting too: The founder of Rinzai Zen, Lin Chi, taught: "When it's time to get dressed, put on your clothes. When you must walk, then walk. When you must sit, then sit. Just be your ordinary self in ordinary life, unconcerned in seeking for Buddhahood. When you're tired, lie down. The fool will laugh at you but the wise man will understand." best Robert ========================= :-) Thanks, Robert. Yes, this is good. All that I will give as a comment is that from other Zen writings, something else that could be added is "When doing any of this, be there!" With metta, Howard /With steady body, with steady awareness, whether standing, sitting, or lying down, a monk determined on mindfulness gains one distinction after another. Having gained one distinction after another, he goes where the King of Death can't see./ (From the Panthaka Sutta) #98115 From: han tun Date: Fri May 29, 2009 2:16 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (10) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. Please note that I am using square brackets for quotation marks. If I type quotation mark, it appears in Email message as un-readable characters. -------------------- At first the definitions of realities may seem complicated but when we have studied them, we shall see that they are helpful for the understanding of the different realities, and this includes understanding of the way they act on other realities and the way they manifest themselves. The study of realities is a foundation for the development of direct understanding, of seeing things as they really are. In the [Greater Discourse on the Simile of the Elephants Footprint] (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 28) we read that Saariputta taught the monks about the four Great Elements. We read about the element of earth or solidity, which is translated here as [extension]: [....And what, your reverences, is the element of extension? The element of extension may be internal, it may be external. And what, your reverences, is the internal element of extension? Whatever is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentary, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is hard, solid, is internal....] -------------------- with metta, Han Ps. If you wish to read the entire text of MN 28 Maha-hatthipadopama Sutta: The Great Elephant Footprint Simile, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, please click on the following. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html #98116 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 5:22 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Ken! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > > > > > So give a quote. That's what I just asked for. If not, you are just > > confirming that "no such statement exists." > ------- > > Arrrragh, I do give quotes! :-) Um....so where is the quote? Is it hidden somewhere, or if I missed it, is it too hard to give it again? > > --------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > According to your understanding, people and trees (for example) > are > > anatta. But that is not what the Buddha taught! Only dhammas bear the > > anatta characteristic. > > R: > This is where the rubber meets the road, and where we will > fundamentally > disagree. You seem to believe in two separate worlds, the world of > conventional > objects and the world of "real dhammas." > ---------------------- > > I don't know how I gave that impression. I possibly hold the DSG record > for saying the most times, "there are only dhammas!" :-) Then why do you think there is a conventional world where conventional objects exist and stay the same and to which anatta doesn't apply? Doesn't make sense to me. > > --------------- > KH: > > OK, to loosely quote from the Anattalakkhana Sutta, 'Because > citta > > (consciousness) is anatta it is not possible to say 'Let my > > consciousness stay the way it is.' <. . .> > > R: > I think that is pretty loose, because I believe that the Buddha's > argument > proceeds in the opposite direction. > ----------------- > > All right, but don't say I never give the quotes you've asked for. You said "to loosely quote from," so I assumed you put it in the order you preferred. I will now go look up the sutta since you did name it and see what it actually say. Back in a minute. Okay I'm back. Yup, the argument is that since consciousness is given to disease and cannot be controlled it is inappropriate to regard it as self. Anatta is always the CONCLUSION, not the premise. Here's what it says: "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." Do you see the line of argument? Since it's inconstant, it's stressful. Since it is stressful it is not "fitting" to regard it as "mine or what I am." Therefore it is "anatta." Rather than being a characteristic seen in its own right, it is concluded from observing anicca-dukkha. Buddha never says that anatta exists independently; he always says it is drawn from anicca. And in Abhidhamma, how does one discern that anatta is an inherent characteristic? By seeing that dhammas are not subject to control. It's the same damn thing. How do you observe something is not subject to control? Do you think "uncontrollability" is a characteristic too, that you can "see?" it is a recognition that it cannot be controlled. If one did not have experience of attempting or wanting to control something and see it change and resist control, how would one ever discern uncontrollability? You > asked for a quote that would indicate for anatta the same sort of thing > we were saying about mass (in conventional science). The ability of > matter to be weighed is proof of its inherent characteristic, mass. > > The inability of a dhamma to be controlled is proof of its inherent > characteristic, anatta. (Anattalakkhana Sutta) No, it is the DEFINITION of anatta, not PROOF. A dhamma is defined as not-self according to Buddha because it changes and cannot be controlled and therefore causes suffering. Buddha's premise is: that which causes suffering and is subject to change is not to be considered "mine." That is anatta, and Buddha says so, in your own "quote" which you misquoted. > Concepts do not possess the anatta characteristic and accordingly we > cannot say with right understanding that they are uncontrollable. Nor > can we say with right understanding that they are 'controllable' or > 'both controllable and uncontrollable' or 'neither controllable nor > uncontrollable.' (Brahmajala Sutta) > > But we can say dhammas are uncontrollable. That is because (and only > because) they possess the anatta characteristic. Oh for God's sake. They are not uncontrollable because they are anatta. They are considered anatta because they are not capable of being controlled. You have ignored the Buddha's logical and sensible argument that dhammas which cause suffering by being temporary and uncontrollable are 'not one's self' and turned it into some kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo. Read the sutta. Now let's check to see if the Brahmajala says that concepts are not subject to anatta. Back in a minute. That's why I like quotes and sources, you can *check* them. Okay I'm back. Well I read the whole long sutta rather quickly, but I couldn't find a single reference to your idea that a "concept is not subject to anatta." Nothing. Maybe you can go through it and find where you think that is. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta Here's what I think about it: Does a concept last forever? Does it arise and fall away? Is it part of self? Does it cause suffering? So what would you conclude from that, if you were to think about it? > ----------------------------------- > R: > He never starts with anatta. He says > "Because it is not possible to say 'Let my consciousness stay the way it > is" it > is not worthy of being seen as part of self, and is therefore anatta. > > <. . .> > Anatta is the conclusion not the premise. That means that anatta comes > from > observation on the ground of the temporary and painful nature of the > changing > reality of samsara, not the other way around. > ------------------------------------ > > I did predict that quotes wouldn't prove anything by themselves (because > we would have different understandings of them). No, you have to actually read the quote and honor what it says, not make something else up. I quoted, you misquoted. We didn't interpret the same quote differently. The quote does work, but you have to listen to the Buddha and agree with what he says. > -------------------- > KH > > > The consciousness you and I conventionally know certainly > > *can* stay the way it is. > > H: > No it does not. This is absolutely fundamentally wrong. Our > ordinary > consciousness changes completely from moment to moment. > --------------------- > > I see. So if someone were to tell you they were, for example, > concentrating on their driving you would dispute that. :-) Of course I would! As you know, there is a moment of concentrating on the road, seeing a sign, turning the wheel, etc., etc. There is no such thing as "concentrating on the road" except for a moment interrupted by many other moments. So of course I would dispute it. > > I don't think you would. Unless, of course, you were discussing > conditioned dhammas at the time. Well, what I say to someone conventionally on the road has nothing to do with it. We are talking about reality; I don't need to talk about it to drive my car, but that doesn't prove anything of value. You can't use conventional speech to defend a doctrine that is false, that is just silly. > -------------------------------------- > R: > There are not two > realities, one that changes and one that does not. The nature of > delusion is > precisely that we *falsely* assume that conventional consciousness does > not > change based on false concepts and interpretations, while in fact there > are > *only* dhammas taking place - the real dhammas, not conventional ones, > which > don't exist. Conventional objects are not real, they are conceptually > based and > based on delusion, so the idea that they "don't change" is a falsehood. > This > separation between conventional reality and dhammas is a major stumbling > block. > You can never perceive the "paramatha" world while seeing the ordinary > world as > an impenetrable one, separate from dhammas. > ------------------- > > It's simply a matter of knowing what we are talking about. Yes, I will have to pray for that. If we are > talking about conditioned dhammas then nothing - not even the entire > universe - lasts for more than a moment. If, however, we are talking > about conventionally known things (people, cars, galaxies . . .) then of > course they can last for more than a moment. No, they cannot. You think concepts are not subject to anicaa and anatta, but even they change from moment to moment. You think they just sit there? > > --------------------- > <. . > > R: > We say this based on akusala concepts that are based in delusion. > ------------------ > > Yes, we ordinary folk do speak about concepts mostly with ignorance. > > (However, in rare moments of dana or sila we can speak about them > without ignorance.) I'll pray again. > > ------------------------ > <. . .> > KH: > > Similarly, with regard to the body, we can say, "I have > > been sitting in this chair for two minutes." > > > > > R: > Also merely a concept. The "paramatha dhammas" do not exist > somewhere else. > They are the actuality of what "sitting in the chair" consists of; only > that > sitting is a concept and chair is a concept, and what we are actually > experiencing is hardness, movement, etc. > ------------------------ > > Yes, I agree. Whether we realise it or not there are always only > dhammas. But here we are talking about ultimate realities - including > the dhammas that create concepts of sitting - we are not talking about > the concepts themselves. Concepts also only arise for a moment. If you think they last forever you are a conceptual eternalist or something. :-) > The Buddha did not expect us to forgo talk about worldly things and > activities. We simply need to keep the two truths separate in our ways > of understanding. That's fine as long as you don't draw conclusions based on it. There are no two truths. To say that concepts do not have the characteristic of anatta is to make the nonsensical statement that they are "part of self," which is not possible, since there is no self. > ---------------------------------- > KH: > > The mental and physical things in the > > conventionally known world really do last. > > R: > No they do not. This is the same as saying "delusion is reality." > > KH: > > It would be ludicrous to > > suggest they didn't. > > R: > It is not ludicrous for anyone who believes in the Dhamma. I am > surprised that > you don't see this. It is only ludicrous from the same conventional > thinking > that is based in unreal concepts. > --------------------------- > > The point I am trying to make in all of this is that the commonly held > modern-day view of anatta is WRONG. I think your specialized view of anatta is wrong. It's some kind of esoteric thingy that only exists in the absolute world, and the ordinary world that Buddha preached in doesn't have anatta, anicca or dukkha according to you. Concepts don't cause suffering? Concepts are delusory. What causes suffering? Delusion. > I remember at a Goenka "vipassana" retreat hearing a story about a gold > ring. The culmination of the story was, "This too will change!" And I > suppose gold rings do change, eventually. But that's not anatta. > Contrary to Goenke's teaching, the understanding that concepts change is > not vipassana. > > --------------------- > KH: > > And the Buddha didn't suggest it: his teaching was > > only about dhammas (absolute realities). > > > > > R: > This is *not* what he said. You are misinterpreting his very words. > Let's take > a look at a statement that cannot be interpreted any other way than > contradicting what you just wrote, from the same sutta on the nature of > anatta, > his second after awakening: > > "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; > internal or > external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form > is to be > seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. > This is not > my self. This is not what I am.'" > > "ANY form, blatant or subtle; common or sublime." How can this be > interpreted > any other way than the Buddha saying that both conventional and absolute > reality > are to be seen as anatta? > ------------------------------ > > I doubt the Buddha was including concepts. Well what was he including? What are ANY forms, blatant or subtle? Does ANY leave anything out? We can, of course, see > concepts as having a conventional sort of impermanence, and that is > often used as a simile for anatta (for teaching purposes). But even so, > I doubt the Buddha was including concepts in this sutta. I think > "subtle" might refer to dhammas that are especially hard to know (such > as bavangha-citta). And I think "sublime" might refer to the > path-factors. Sure you can make stuff up instead of honoring what he said, go ahead and speculate to fit your own philosophy. He said ANY, he didn't leave anything out. If there is anything in mind, body or world that isn't subject to the three marks, the whole system is nonsense. If consciousness cognizes a concept it is using the same mechanism in samsara that is true of every other thought. Anicca, anatta and dukkha are part of everything that exists in samsara. Is concept beyond samsara? If it is not, it bears the three marks, or else perhaps you would like to say that concept = nibbana, and is thus not subject to change? > ---------------------- > R: > Maybe the higher discernment of dhammas is more > direct, but that does not mean that conventional objects cannot be > understood as > anatta. That would make the teaching only for stream-enterers, and I > don't > believe that. Do you? > ---------------------- > > Strictly speaking, the Buddha did teach "the way of the ariyans." But we > ordinary Dhamma students can at least have *indirect* right > understanding of anicca dukkha and anatta. Yes, I will pray for that. > > > I'd better stop there: these posts are reaching epic proportions. :-) Yes; too bad that it is all so important that there is nothing to snip. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #98117 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 5:45 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > I'm behind in my reading of DSG posts. The modem in my other computer is not working and I am typing for the first time from a new notebook which has access to the internet via a sim card (hard to get stay connected). > I'm going straight to the comments. > > > ============= > > > S: When this discussion about anatta between you and Jon first started, my reaction was that the Buddha's choice for the term was probably the best. > > Rob Ep: I am not denying the Buddha's term at all. I am in fact trying to support what the term actually says, and clearly means: 'not self.' When a term has the word 'not' in it, you cannot make believe that the 'not' is not there, that it is really saying 'this' instead of 'not this.' > > Sukin: You obviously sort out your thoughts very well, I on the other hand am extremely muddle headed. So it may be that I keep failing to follow your line of thought and end up misrepresenting you. > > You say anatta *clearly means* what you think it means and bring up rules of language to support your point. But shouldn't you consider more that this is a statement reflecting an understanding of / result of enlightenment to, the way things are which no one would have any clue about without the Buddha teaching it? Of course not. I'm not going to purposely stupefy myself for no reason. The word says 'not self,' that's what it says. If someone smarter than me explains that it means something else and can explain it to me I'll consider their higher knowledge. But I'm not going to substitute a clear specific with a vague generality, like "don't you realize you don't know what it means?" Where is the evidence that my understanding is wrong? Can you give me a better definition? If all you can say is "You have no idea and neither do I" then we can both stop reading altogether and just look at our reflections and talk baby talk. I will not replace my limited knowledge until I get something better to substitute for it. Please, feel free to contribute something specific and I will duly consider it. > Indeed the general language was based on perceptions of unrealities and reflection of delusion. Were the Dhamma just another view, one of the 60 odd kinds of wrong view, then it would not matter at all. But the Dhamma stands on a totally different ground, indeed the only place from which any and all those wrong views would clearly be seen for what they are. Well then we should be able to read it and get some correction for our ignorance. But what I see the Buddha say supports my view. You are coming from a different philosophy, informed by all sorts of commentaries that say anatta means something other than what the Buddha said. Until someone gives me a decent explanation of why that is so, I'll stick with the Buddha. > However this is about the development of Right View which is not a matter simply of holding a set of ideas meant to counter other ideas. It involves the study of present moment realities resulting in wisdom being developed to the point of having direct insight into the way things are. Yes, well I will try to develop pariyatti based on what the Boss says and not on idle speculation in the meantime. This idea that we must adopt a view contrary to the Buddha's words because we are too dumb to see the real secret hidden truth and probably won't for many lifetimes is really really pernicious. We should be working on our understanding now, using the resources we have, not making up a whole different system based on the presumption of ignorance. > This means that if upon reading the Dhamma, one fails to relate whatever that has been read to present moment experiences, chances are that one's understanding of what has been read is not quite right. The first step is Pariyatti and pariyatti must as I said, relate to the present moment. Fine, relate it to the present moment. So far all I have to work with are general principles that somehow what I say is wrong. Why is it wrong? What is right? Please lend me a bit of your pariyatti and explain it to me in a way that even a simple layperson can understand so that my pariyatti can develop. When I look at the present moment I see it is very fleeting, has no substantiality or self and that clinging to it causes suffering. That's the Buddha's teaching as well. If you say 'well you are just talking you don't know that directly,' then I will say, "at least it is correct pariyatti, so I am fine." > And no one has ever suggested that the `not' in `not self' is of no import. I have even said that its choice must have been the ideal, considering that `self view' is inevitable if there is no Dhamma. However the Buddha was not just another teacher and the Teachings are not just another set of ideas meant to replace or counter other prevailing ideas. It is the *only* teaching which points to the way things actually are and this includes the Fourth Noble Truth, namely the Path. This is all general; it's all fine, but what does it have to do with my simple assertion that an-atta means no-self? > It would not be in accordance with the aim were his teachings to condition thinking without any level of application. > > ==================== > > Rob Ep: I do not pretend to see realities directly, although I may have had a half-glimpse or two, but I disagree that my view on this does not serve the attempt to see realities directly and to observe anatta in the present moment. > > Sukin: The suggestion that Anatta means simply that there is no `self' and this is understood as a result of seeing nama and rupa for what they are makes it just `theory', of little or no practical consequence in the meantime. Then what are we talking about? Please tell me. > > =============== > > Rob Ep: If one distorts what the most basic meaning of something is, there is absolutely no chance that one will ever see this directly. If pariyatti is so distorted that the basic meaning of something is denied, then what good will it do to try to clarify it further? > > Sukin: The purpose of the Dhamma is to draw the attention to the present moment reality and this begins with pariyatti. Pariyatti understanding at a beginning level would have it that whatever this is, it is just a dhamma arisen by conditions and already fallen away. So while one insists on having a satisfying definition and not knowing that such thinking is conditioned, one actually accumulates more ignorance. I disagree. I think that obscuring the teachings of the Buddha is a bad idea, and that invoking the present moment doesn't make it any more correct. > > =============== > > Rob Ep: It is possible that one's own proliferations in philosophy have such a solid sway that it is no longer possible to look at the simple basic reality of the words used by the Master Teacher, and they have been distorted. In that case it is important to clarify that basic meaning so that it is not further obscured. > > Sukin: Yes it is very important to be clear as possible what is read, and when expressing to others, there is also the factor of responsibility. But we have to consider the purpose as well. If I fail to see that the aim is to understand the present moment and end up instead being involved in `thinking', I'll then also encourage the same in others. If on the other hand I'm constantly being drawn to study the present moment, this is what I will encourage in others as well. Studying the present moment is how you and I would both come to know *exactly* what Anatta is wouldn't we? Perhaps so. In the meantime, we are talking about questions of Dhamma, and we may as well either clarify them or not say anything at all. It's all about the present moment, but when we are talking we should know what we are saying as well. > > ============= > > Rob Ep: Buddha defined anatta in terms of the beliefs of the day, and in terms of the *inherent* belief in a self that is part of our legacy as a human species, as sentient beings. As sentient beings we tend to belief in self without any proof because all things that happen in our conventional perception seem to lead back to the center of consciousness, and we presume there is someone in there and that phenomena circulate around this self. > > Sukin: You've got a story there which you use to support your position. No it's just an adjunct. My story is based on the Buddha's story. I follow what he said and I believe it. Do you? > But know also that `self view' arises even at sense door experience taking such as `visible object' for self. Yes you could say that this is `inherent' in the sense that it is inevitable in the absence of the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths. But how would anyone have known `self view' at the moment of it taking visible object as object were the teaching about Anatta not applicable at this level? In other words, the problem is not a well formed belief in `self', but that these beliefs originate from wrong perception at the paramattha level. That is possible but since Buddha bothered to preach I would like to believe what he said. Then I can have it handy as the moment arises. > > Besides what do you think about the teachings on the three kinds of sanna, namely anicca sanna, dukkha sanna and anatta sanna and their opposites? Where would anatta sanna apply in the suggestion that anatta means simply the `absence of self'? The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion. > Also there is this that at the moment of enlightenment, depending on accumulations, one person will experience Nibbana via penetrating the characteristic of anicca, another by dukkha and another by anatta? What do you make of this? I don't know about those specifics or even if they are true. I will have to experience them at some time in the future. However, I can imagine that one person may be more predisposed to observe one characteristic or the other. What is so strange about that? > > ============ > > Rob Ep: So Buddha needed to counteract this very basic assumption of all human beings and do so strongly. Atta is the noun that existed as the 'self,' and Atman was the form in which self was defined as a spiritual or eternal self. The teaching regarding phenomena is that all things within samsara, including the experience of the human organism and personality are 'not self,' meaning that they are not a self and they are not a part of a self. > > Sukin: Atman does not exist, period. This can be seen as being purely the product of `thinking' even now. So obviously the teaching on anatta must require an understanding much deeper than this. If I am not mistaken, I think you apply anatta to concepts of people and things as well, am I right? If so, I wonder why would it then require seeing namas and rupas as being all there is that exists? It is a closer view of the reality, like looking through the microscope and seeing the microscopic particles close up. Of course that is more precise knowledge, but the conventional objects are still causing suffering and are still temporary, even so. > ============== > > Rob Ep: Anatta is a positive characteristic of all things in the sense that all things when seen in reality are lacking a self and are not part of self, and it takes wisdom to see this. > > Sukin: What do you mean by "characteristic" here?! Are you going to define it as being a concept with no reference to a reality? No. > > ============== > > Rob Ep: That does not mean that "anatta" is something other than what it actually is, which is 'not' 'self.' > > Sukin: And this is the "characteristic"? Yup, that's what the Buddha said, and I believe him. If it is something else could you **please** tell me what it is? No one who thinks this can say a word about it... I wonder why..... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98118 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 5:25 am Subject: Mind is Home! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: My mind is my Home & best Friend: To overcome loneliness, first learn to meditate, and to live in the moment! Living like this, your mind becomes very peaceful, very calm, & very strong. Mindfulness makes you very strong. You will develop serene inner strength... I have no parents. I make heaven and earth my parents. I have no home. I make mindfulness my home. I have no life and death. I make breathing in-&-out my life and death. I have no divine power. I make honesty my divine power. I have no friends. I make my mind my friend. I have no enemy. I make carelessness my enemy. I have no sword. I make absence of ego my sword! Source: Sayadaw U Jotika from Burma. His Book: Snow in the Summer is published by DMG Books (www.dmgbooks.com) Have a nice homeless day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net My mind is my Home! #98119 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 8:34 am Subject: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98019) > ================= > It is neither the visible object nor the seeing that is being guarded, > but the mind that is being guarded. Guarding the senses is always guarding > the mind door - guarding against reaction for or against, whatever > sense-door is active, guarding against craving and aversion for the knowing and > the known, guarding against loss of attention, and generally guarding > against the hindrances and loss of mindfulness. > ================= As I see it, this is a conventional form of "guarding", i.e., being on the lookout for. I don't think this could be what is meant by guarding the senses in the teachings, because (a) all the sense-doors are "active" at the same time, and (b) akusala manifests spontaneously and cannot be prevented. Whenever there is awareness of seeing or visible object, there is at that moment no akusala "reaction" at the mind-door, and there is the development of the understanding that leads to the eradication of the defilements. This is a guarding of the senses. > ================= > Another way of looking at it would be that the primary importance of > developing awareness/insight is to gain knowledge, and dispel ignorance and > wrong view, as to the way things truly are. It is this knowledge that will > eventually (at the moment of enlightenment) eradicate craving and attachment. > The ultimate goal is the escape from samsara, not just the eradiation of > defilements (with continued existence). > ------------------------------------ > When the defilements are gone, it is no concern whether experience > continues or not. > ================= To my understanding, the basis for a sense of urgency is not the existence of defilements but the unsatisfactoriness of life in samsara. Everyone would like to have fewer defilements, but it is only be seeing dhammas as they truly are that the understanding leading to the eradication of defilements can be developed. Jon #98120 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 8:37 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98041) > ================= > > (With apologies to you and others for the delay in responding.) > > There is no problem with that; it gave me a chance to rest and shore up my strength! :-) > ================= That may explain the robustness of your reply ;-)) > ================= > > In the passage from the Samohavinidani quoted by Scott in a related thread, the meaning was given as this: > > "The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self. ... > > And how is that discerned? > ================= The question was whether or not the characteristic of not-self had ever been described in terms of a positive characteristic. I think that "insusceptibility to control" is a positive characteristic. As for *how* it's discerned, it's discerned by panna that has been accumulated gradually over time (but on a moment-to-moment basis). > ================= Normally Buddha seems to ask that one contemplate this inabilty to have power exercises over it, as well as its temporary and unsatisfying nature. As I see it, this characteristic is discerned by a citta in relation to a dhamma. How does a dhamma *contain* insusceptibility to control? > ================= I do not understand it to be said that a dhamma "contains" insusceptibility to control. A characteristic is a manifest attribute. (I am tempted to ask whether, in suggesting that a characteristic is something contained in a dhamma, you are not reifying the characteristic ;-)) > ================= It is only in relation to a nama that would wish to control it that this insusceptibility appears. So one must either fail to control it or contemplate this inability to control. In either case, the dhamma all by itself doesn't have this; it just is itself arising and falling. Lack of control is on the part of a controlling intention, is it not? How else does it appear? > ================= Well I suppose every characteristic could be stated in terms of something to be contemplated. But that would be to miss the point that what is being referred to here is a characteristic that is apparent to developed panna only, and thus not to reasoned consideration. > ================= > It is the failure to account for the actual meaning of what is said that frustrates me. When confronting the actual meaning of a definition 'around here' I often get a bunch of general feedback that "it must be a positive characteristic of a dhamma all by itself' because someone else said so. > ================= I think you misunderstand. I am only saying that this is how it is said to be (not that it *must* be like this). > ================= > The belief in a soul, self or Divine Being are not beliefs of that time; they are beliefs of every time in human existence. All the Buddhas would be combatting the same tendencies of human beings to believe in eternalism or egoity. > ================= I agree with what you say here, but not with your earlier comment that "It was atta and Atman that came first and anatta came second." Jon #98121 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 8:40 am Subject: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98036) > ================= > No, Jon, only for persons who have problems in language or logic areas > of the brain! When someone says "X doesn't exist," it means "There is no > X." It does NOT mean that there exists an X that X doesn't exist!!! That is > just plain contradiction! When someone says that unicorns don't exist, that > does not mean that there are unicorns that don't exist! This simply uses a > word/concept, 'unicorn' that people understand, and it denies it any > actual referent. To put it more succinctly, it says that there ain't no such > things. > ================= Yes, this is the commonsense approach. But I still think that, in terms of philosophical debate, it is more correct to say "the notion of a unicorn is a false one" than to say "unicorns don't exist". > ================= Of course, if people didn't understand what the word meant, that > denial would be meaningless to them, and they might still believe that there are > horses with single horns. Likewise, if people didn't know what 'self' > meant to the Buddha, they might still believe in an eternal core of independent > being within the aggregates, perhaps nibbana itself, and at the same time, > think they accept the anatta teaching. > Actually, I have run across one or two places where the Buddha > outright denied the existence of self. But generally he pointed out that > any-and-everything that might be taken for self is, in fact, not self ... > ================= On my reading of the suttas, what he pointed to as being not-self were dhammas, expressed in one form or other (and sometimes in conventional terms such as the body). > ================= > I'm not sure about nibbana being "eternal and unchanging". I'd have to > check that. > ----------------------------------------------- > What is the alternative, Jon? > ================= Well I find nibbana such a difficult thing to grasp that I don't really feel comforatble agreeing with anything that's not pretty much a direct quote from the texts ;-)) Jon #98122 From: "Scott" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 12:02 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) scottduncan2 Dear Rob Ep, Regarding: R: "...The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion..." Scott: I think that the view contained above is the main impediment to an understanding of lakkha.na. To consider that '[t]he idea is to see insubstantiality' renders it very difficult to grasp the meaning of what it is for a dhamma to 'have a characteristic.' The implication, as I read the above, is that 'insubstantiality' must also be a characteristic (given that it is to be 'seen'). Do you have any textual support for the suggestion that 'the idea is to see insubstantiality?' Maybe we could look at these. Sincerely, Scott. #98123 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 29, 2009 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/29/2009 4:34:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (98019) > ================= > It is neither the visible object nor the seeing that is being guarded, > but the mind that is being guarded. Guarding the senses is always guarding > the mind door - guarding against reaction for or against, whatever > sense-door is active, guarding against craving and aversion for the knowing and > the known, guarding against loss of attention, and generally guarding > against the hindrances and loss of mindfulness. > ================= As I see it, this is a conventional form of "guarding", i.e., being on the lookout for. I don't think this could be what is meant by guarding the senses in the teachings, because (a) all the sense-doors are "active" at the same time, and (b) akusala manifests spontaneously and cannot be prevented. Whenever there is awareness of seeing or visible object, there is at that moment no akusala "reaction" at the mind-door, and there is the development of the understanding that leads to the eradication of the defilements. This is a guarding of the senses. --------------------------------------------------- I don't follow your item "a" above, and your item "b" is contrary to the Buddha's teaching on right effort. And your second paragraph is largely incomprehensible to me. Moreover, it says that arising of unwholesome namas is never directly observed, and that makes mental modification, repeatedly advocated by the Buddha, impossible. (There can be no "heading off at the pass.") -------------------------------------------------- > ================= > Another way of looking at it would be that the primary importance of > developing awareness/insight is to gain knowledge, and dispel ignorance and > wrong view, as to the way things truly are. It is this knowledge that will > eventually (at the moment of enlightenment) eradicate craving and attachment. > The ultimate goal is the escape from samsara, not just the eradiation of > defilements (with continued existence). > ------------------------------------ > When the defilements are gone, it is no concern whether experience > continues or not. > ================= To my understanding, the basis for a sense of urgency is not the existence of defilements but the unsatisfactoriness of life in samsara. ---------------------------------------------- We were not discussing urgency. But certainly a recognition of urgency is not an instance or symptom of defilement, but rather the opposite. ------------------------------------------- Everyone would like to have fewer defilements, but it is only be seeing dhammas as they truly are that the understanding leading to the eradication of defilements can be developed. --------------------------------------------- Yes, correctly seeing and acting appropriately based on that correct seeing. And the appropriate acting is usually against the stream. It requires active effort. Going with the flow, being "natural," is being led by the nose by our defilements. ---------------------------------------------- Jon ============================= With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98124 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 29, 2009 1:09 pm Subject: [dsg] ANAPANASATI: no 41. nilovg Dear friends, Any kind of reality can be the object of sati and we should not try to select particular objects. If we select particular objects we will not see things as they are, as realities which arise because of their own conditions and which are beyond control, anattå. The Visuddhimagga (I, 56) continues after the passage about Mahå Tissa with the explanation of the virtue of restraint of the faculties: ‘…if he, if that person, left the eye faculty unguarded, remained with the eye-door unclosed by the door-panel of mindfulness, these states of covetousness, etc. might invade, might pursue, might threaten, him. He enters upon the way of its restraint: he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of mindfulness. It is the same one of whom it is said he guards the eye faculty, undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty.’ This does not mean that we should avoid seeing or hearing, there are conditions for the arising of these realities. If the doorways are unguarded akusala cittas arise on account of what is experienced. We take the object for permanent or for self, we do not know what is really there. When there is, after seeing, hearing or the experiences through the other doors, the development of understanding, the doors are guarded. (conclusion) ****** Nina. #98125 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 29, 2009 9:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/29/2009 4:41:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (98036) > ================= > No, Jon, only for persons who have problems in language or logic areas > of the brain! When someone says "X doesn't exist," it means "There is no > X." It does NOT mean that there exists an X that X doesn't exist!!! That is > just plain contradiction! When someone says that unicorns don't exist, that > does not mean that there are unicorns that don't exist! This simply uses a > word/concept, 'unicorn' that people understand, and it denies it any > actual referent. To put it more succinctly, it says that there ain't no such > things. > ================= Yes, this is the commonsense approach. ------------------------------------------ No, it is exactly what the language means. ------------------------------------------- But I still think that, in terms of philosophical debate, it is more correct to say "the notion of a unicorn is a false one" than to say "unicorns don't exist". ---------------------------------------------- It IS safer, because for some people, and anthropologists often assert this of primitive societies, the use of a term presupposes existence. Also, perfectly safe and simple formulations that don't require mentioning "notions" would be "There are no unicorns" or "There is no such thing as a unicorn." --------------------------------------------- > ================= Of course, if people didn't understand what the word meant, that > denial would be meaningless to them, and they might still believe that there are > horses with single horns. Likewise, if people didn't know what 'self' > meant to the Buddha, they might still believe in an eternal core of independent > being within the aggregates, perhaps nibbana itself, and at the same time, > think they accept the anatta teaching. > Actually, I have run across one or two places where the Buddha > outright denied the existence of self. But generally he pointed out that > any-and-everything that might be taken for self is, in fact, not self ... > ================= On my reading of the suttas, what he pointed to as being not-self were dhammas, expressed in one form or other (and sometimes in conventional terms such as the body). > ================= > I'm not sure about nibbana being "eternal and unchanging". I'd have to > check that. > ----------------------------------------------- > What is the alternative, Jon? > ================= Well I find nibbana such a difficult thing to grasp that I don't really feel comforatble agreeing with anything that's not pretty much a direct quote from the texts ;-)) Jon ============================== With metta, Howard Reality /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) #98126 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 29, 2009 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/29/2009 8:04:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Rob Ep, Regarding: R: "...The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion..." Scott: I think that the view contained above is the main impediment to an understanding of lakkha.na. To consider that '[t]he idea is to see insubstantiality' renders it very difficult to grasp the meaning of what it is for a dhamma to 'have a characteristic.' The implication, as I read the above, is that 'insubstantiality' must also be a characteristic (given that it is to be 'seen'). Do you have any textual support for the suggestion that 'the idea is to see insubstantiality?' Maybe we could look at these. --------------------------------------- In this regard, please consider the Uraga Sutta material I provide at the end of this post. -------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott ========================== With metta, Howard Emptiness /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. ... He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #98127 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 29, 2009 1:37 pm Subject: Dhamma with Khun Bong, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Some realities are elements that know, remember, feel, are happy or unhappy. Some elements do not know anything, such as flavour or hardness. One can begin to understand this and know the terms nama and rupa later on. It is not helpful to use the terms first and say: this is naama, this is ruupa. First of all one has to understand what dhamma is. The Buddha used the terms naama and ruupa because the people of Magadha could understand them. We do not know what dhamma is. There is nothing that is ours, that can be prevented from arising and falling away, from changing. Nobody can control the arising and falling away of any reality. It is an element, a dhaatu that arises, not ‘us’. ------ My own reflection: I find it very significant that we should not use the terms naaama and ruupa first before understanding what dhamma is, a conditioned reality that is beyond control. Knowing this will prevent us from just using the names of realities without any understanding. There should be attention to their characteristics when they appear instead of attention to their names. (conclusion) Nina. #98128 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The sixth door sarahprocter... HI Alberto (& Ann), I'm pretty sure we agree on all this and I may have misunderstood one of your comments before. --- On Tue, 26/5/09, sprlrt wrote: >I'm posting this from "Summary of the 24 paccaya" by K. Sujin, trans. by Amara-Varee (http://www.dhammast udy.com/paccaya. html), which IMO makes clear that past kamma is unrelated to javana cittas occurring in both sense and mind door processes. .... S: Yes, by kamma condition, javana cittas do not result. However the cetana is accumulated by nat. decisive support condition. .... >But a sense door process cannot occur without past kamma (cetana cetasika previously arisen in a javana citta, kusala or akusala), as paccaya for the arising of one of the 10 dvi-pañca-viññana (seeing... touching, the paccayuppanna of that kamma), .... S: Correct.. .... >while the occurrence of a mind door one is not triggered by a vipaka citta, the unavoidable result of past kamma, as main condition but, as you suggest, by pakatupanissaya paccaya, habitual strong dependence condition (i.e. accumulations) ; with anantara and anantarupanissaya paccaya, proximity strong dependence as main conditions for the (optional) tadalambana/ registering vipaka citta closing the process/vithi. .... S: yes, pakatupanissaya as main condition for the javana cittas (in sense and mind door processes). Of course, the first citta in the mind-door process after the bhavanga cittas is a kiriya citta (mano-dvaravajjana citta), also occurring by anantara (and other) paccaya..... Actually, there's more detail we could go into for both the sense and mind door processes - even in the sense door, the seeing consciousness vipaka citta does not arise first, but of course you're right that when it does, it has to have been conditioned by kamma paccaya.... [As Rob Ep posted recently: "When a rúpa arises and impinges on a sense-base, the first moment of citta which arises and falls away is the bhavanga-citta which is called past bhavanga, atíta-bhavanga. The vibrating bhavanga, bhavanga calana, is the second moment of citta. The arrest bhavanga, bhavangupaccheda, is the third moment of citta. The five-sense-door adverting-consciousness is the fourth moment of citta. One of the sense-cognitions is the fifth moment of citta. The receiving-consciousness is the sixth moment of citta. The investigating-consciousness is the seventh moment of citta. The determining-consciousness is the eighth moment of citta The first javana-citta is the ninth moment of citta. | The second javana-citta is the tenth moment of citta. | The third javana-citta is the eleventh moment of citta. | The fourth javana-citta is the twelfth moment of citta. |seven The fifth javana-citta is the thirteenth moment of citta. | javana- The sixth javana-citta is the fourteenth moment of citta. |cittas The seventh javana-citta is the fifteenth moment of citta. " [[Source: http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para5.htm Chapter 11: The Duration of different Processes]] | A:> Precis of the 3 dhamma in the 24 paccaya: p.c. = paccaya-dhamma, the dhamma that is direct condition for results to arise (janaka-satti) or maintains and supports the existence of the resulting dhamma from itself and other paccaya (upathambhaka- satti): namely the 4 paramattha-dhamma and pannatti. p.y. = paccayuppanna- dhamma, the dhamma that results from the paccaya, namely all sankhara (3 of the paramattha-dhamma: 89 citta, 52 cetasika, and 28 rupa). ... S: Ann, note that pannatti is included in paccaya-dhamma but not in paccayuppanna-dhamma .... >p.n. =paccanika-dhamma, the dhamma that is opposed to paccayuppanna- dhamma (that which cannot be the result of the specific dhamma) or is opposed to some paccaya-dhamma. It comprises all sankhara-dhamma (the three paramattha-dhamma, namely 89 citta, 52 cetasika, and 28 rupa). >Nibbana and pannatti do not arise therefore they are not the result of any paccaya whatsoever. Thus they are the paccanika-dhamma of all paccaya, (they could never be the paccayuppana of any paccaya.) ... S: And then there is the wide, open space... ... >13. Kamma-paccaya ... >2. Nanakkhanika- kamma-paccaya p.c. :33 cetana-cetasika namely 21 kusala-cetana and 12 past akusala cetana that has fallen away. p.y. : 36 vipaka-citta, 38 cetasika, patisandhi-kammaja- rupa, asannisatta- kammaja-rupa and pavatti-kammaja- rupa. p.n. : 21 kusala-citta, 12 akusala-citta, 20 kiriya-citta, 52 cetasika and other rupa than the paccayupanna- dhamma. ... S: I like this detail and way of classification. K.Sujin gave a wonderfully detailed long series of lectures on Conditions in Thai (along with ones on Cetasikas and all the other topics). Nina's excellent book on Conditions is based on these. Ann, Jon, Nina and others who understand Thai are fortunate to be able to listen to the lectures on audio. Thanks Alberto, great discussing Dhamma with you. Metta, Sarah ======= #98129 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: siila sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Phil*, Rob K & all), --- On Tue, 26/5/09, Scott wrote: >Scott: I've been wondering, first of all, whether 'sight of a beautiful woman', for a heterosexual man, would be considered as a moment of vipaaka. Technically, this is only visible object, because 'beautiful woman' is a concept which arises in the mind door long after colour is seen by eye-consciousness; beauty, as you know, is in the eye of the beholder. .... S: Conventionally speaking only can we say that 'sight of a beautiful woman' is kusala vipaka. Just like when someone wins the jackpot, we say 'kusala vipaka', but this is just an idea based on what we think will be the pleasant feelings and thoughts associated with the win. ... >And the valuation by which vipaaka is said to be either kusala or akusala refers to what the ordinary person would consider pleasant or unpleasant, as I understand it. What do you think? Would this fit with your understanding of vipaaka? .... S: Rob, Ken H and others will remember how we discussed one time in Kaeng Krajan the accounts in the Jatakas and Suttas about the results of good kamma, gain and good fortune as discussed in similar conventional terms, such as beauty, wealth and so on. When asked exactly what these refer to in terms of paramattha dhammas, as I recall, K.Sujin mentioned that they are a kind of shorthand for kusala vipaka by way of pleasant bodily feeling in particular. Of course a poor person may have more kusala vipaka and be healthier as we know, but such terms are just pointers along the lines you refer to above. Rob, Ken or others may like to add more. ... >Ph: "p.s last post to you for a good little while as I disappear again." >Scott: Yeah, um, talk to you in a little while, Phil. ;-) ... S: Hope so ;-). *Phil, can I suggest it could also be considered as dana, an act of generosity by you, to write more to us and share your wealth of dhamma knowledge and consideration as well? While the list is quieter, perhaps everyone could consider such dana:-)) Metta, Sarah ========= #98130 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 29, 2009 11:22 pm Subject: Into Nothingness... bhikkhu.sama... Friends: How to Cross Samsara by a Meditation Object? The Venerable Upasiva once requested the Buddha: Sir, I am alone, dependent, helpless, I can neither cross the flood of sense desire, nor the flood of becoming, nor the flood of ignorance, nor the flood of views! Please, All-Seeing-One, tell me the meditation object by which, I may cross this flood. Aware, direct mind towards Nothingness, replied the Buddha, be helped by relying on the notion: 'Nothing really is...'! Thus by relinquishing all desires, by stilling all speculative opinions & by reviewing the elimination of craving day & night, you may cross this flood…!!! Crossing into Nothingness... Source: Sutta Nipata 1069-70 Have a nice empty voidness day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Nothing really is... #98131 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:48 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98041) (cont'd) > ================= > > I see nothing wrong with the idea that dhammas have characteristics that do not change over time. > > That's fine and dandy if you can just say what they are. If you cannot explain what the characteristic *is* at least with a decent definition then you can't say that it is a characteristic. You have to at least know what you are referring to in order to talk about something. Anatta has a clear meaning given by the Buddha which you and others seem to want to dismiss or deny in favor of some unspoken "higher" meaning that is undisclosed to mere mortals. That is my objection. > ================= Oh spare me the drama please, Rob ;-)) The texts say that all conditioned dhammas have the same 3 characteristics, and that these characteristics have to be fully known (by panna) for enlightenment to be attained. So whatever the terms anicca, dukkha and anattaa may mean in other contexts, in this context they each have a meaning that is consonant with it being a meaning that pertains to a characteristic,. > ================= I have even said that I *agree* that anatta *is* a characteristic of all dhammas; but I have added that what that characteristic *is* is the "lack of self or soul or center" and that they are "just exactly what they are." What the arahat, I would claim, would directly perceive that would show that the dhamma had 'no self' or anatta, would be the fact that it simply goes through its changes based on conditions, and that there is *nothing else causing them to behave the way they do.* This is an inherent characteristic, but it is a characteristic whose positive aspect is *just being what it is and nothing more.* If you think the positive aspect of "no-self" is something other than this then you have to be able to say what *your* definition of that positive characteristic is. > ================= But as I've been at pains to explain, I don't have *my own* definition of the characteristic of not-self. I'm afraid I can't say much if anything more than I've said so far. > ================= Otherwise you are actually not saying anything, just invoking a general rule without understanding the specific instance you are talking about. In which case I have no basis for confidence that it is true, or even that you know it to be true, since you can't say *what* is true, other than "anatta is a positive characteristic of a dhamma." > ================= I would rather say dhammas have a characteristic that is given the name "anatta" > ================= There's no explanation of what that means. I have given you plenty of definitions to challenge; you should give me at least one. I can say that "a fish is really a snake" and insist that someone smart told me so, but unless I can explain how that can be so, you have no basis to accept my statement. > ================= I disagree with you here. It's not a matter of my definition vs. yours. It's a matter of the best understanding of the teachings possible, with the assistance of the texts. > ================= > > I am mainly concerned with identifying the orthodox commentarial position, and I hope I have done that (you may not agree with it, of course). > > Yes, I would like to know what the heck it is, other than to say "it is true." I can say it is true that the official Christian position is that you go to Heaven when you die, but without an explanation of why or how it is merely an empty belief. > ================= I'm not saying (haven't said) anything *must* be true. To hold a belief in that way would not be in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. > ================= > > The problem with discussing between ourselves on 'the merits' is that, as you've pointed out in an earlier post, it's a case of the blind arguing with the blind, and our idea of the 'merits' is so skewed as to make any conclusion reached of little or no value. > > That's why I think that a starting point for us mere mortals should be to actually be able to explain what we ourselves *mean.* If you only make general statements and say "it's true because the arahats said so" without knowing what it means, it is a useless sort of thing. > ================= I differ with you on the starting point. To me, the best starting point is to identify what the texts say on the matter. Note that this does not mean we have to take is as necessarily being the last word on the subject. That would be contrary to what the Buddha advised. But without that starting point identified and kept in mind, we are likely to be led astray by our own biased views. > ================= I have given what the Buddha said about anatta. If you have a different interpretation of what he meant, you should please say what that interpretation is and be specific. Whether you can perceive it directly or not is beside the point for us pariyatti seekers. A clear statement is what is necessary for us; not "we'll find out in nibbana," which is no different than "ours is not to reason why - we'll find out in Heaven." > ================= The detail from the Samohavinodani has been given (and you agreed at the time that it clarified the matter). You would like to see confirmation of the actual experience of the 3 characteristics from the mouth of someone who has experienced them at a deep level. I doubt this cam be found, except to the extent it may be mentioned in the Thera- and Theri-gatha (but I don't have any ready references). > ================= > > Nevertheless, I have mentioned above why I would reject any hypothesis that the teaching on anatta was given in order to address certain views that were prevalent at the time, and that is my argument "on the merits". > > That is not enough for me, Jon. :-) I need to know what you think anatta *is,* if it is something other than "nonexistence of self," which is what the word actually means. > ================= As I see it, it's not a question of what "anatta" (in the abstract) means, but of what is meant by anatta in the context of the characteristic of anatta. Jon #98132 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:49 am Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98042) > ================= > > > A dhamma does not arise and fall away within one moment; it takes a number of moments; > > > ---------------------- > > Nama takes one moment; rupa lasts for 15 or 17 moments and corresponds to 15 or 17 cittas respectively: > ================= Yes. Both nama and rupa last for a mere moment, but the rupa moment is longer than the name moment. > ================= > > To my understanding of the teachings, dhammas arise and fall away within a single, extremely brief moment. Nevertheless, each dhamma is said to have, within that moment, an arising, persisting and ceasing aspect. > > Well, I would like to see a description of this if you have a citation. That is possible for cittas - but rupas last longer. If you can get a page citation for me from KS's "Survey" or Nina's rupas or cetasikas I will look it up. > ================= I don't have a reference to hand as I write, but will try to find one. > ================= > > The arising, persisting and ceasing aspect within the single moment of a dhammas "being" can be known to (highly developed) panna. Such panna would see the dhamma's arising (from not having been), and it's falling away (to no longer being). > > Well if that somehow takes place within a single moment, then a citta could see a concomitant nama rising and falling away in that same moment, but it can't see another citta since there is only one at a time, and it can't see itself, so it is still close to impossible for this to take place. > ================= A citta can directly experience an immediately past citta or cetasika. > ================= What panna sees, as I understand it, is over a succession of cittas it can see directly the rising, persisting and falling away of a *rupa,* since this takes 15 or 17 moments of cittas, and panna can accumulate this knowledge over time with the help of vittaka and whatever else. Maybe someone can clear this up. > ================= As mentioned above, the immediately past citta can be the object of the following citta (assuming awareness and clear comprehension) > ================= > > As I said before, the knowledge gained by panna is cumulative, so much of what you say here would hold true. > > OMG, I think we agree on something. I need a drink! ;-) > ================= I suspect the only time you agree with anything I say is when you need an excuse for another drink ;-)) Jon #98133 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:52 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98043) > ================= > > A teaching can be instructive without being a practice to be followed. > > I guess I'm going to have to ask you what your definition of "instruct" is. To me it means to tell someone what to do and how to do it. I guess something can be "informative" without being instructive, if that's what you mean. > ================= I mean instructive in the sense of informative, illustrative (a different meaning than is carried by the verb "instruct"). > ================= > > Some passages in the suttas are applicable to all, others to particular classes of individuals. There's nothing surprising about that, surely. > > No, the point at issue is why it would be given if it were only for those who already knew it, and if not, what the purpose is, other than to instruct people how to do it correctly. > ================= The purpose of giving the teaching is to inform those who are capable of benefitting from it. > ================= > > Where a passage is particularly applicable to those who have attained an advanced level of samatha and/or vipassana, the passage should not be read as setting out a path for all and sundry. > > I don't think we can determine who something might or might not apply to; although many appear to want to try to make such determinations. But in any case, if it is setting out a path for *anyone* it is still setting out a path. So can that be done at all or not? > ================= The Buddha taught the way to enlightenment. The real question is the nature of that way, that is, whether it involves following a form of practice (doing certain specific things), or whether it is more in the nature of coming to a better understanding of the way things are with the assistance of the teachings as guide or reminder to condition the (re-)arising of sati/panna. > ================= > > A person may be highly skilled in anapanasati but not in satipatthana. Samatha and vipassana involve different "strains" of panna. > > But the question is whether there is a relation or not. If there is no relation, then why teach anapanasati to these people? If there is a relation, then it *is* being taught to them, in which case it is an instruction. So which is it? > ================= Mindfulness of breathing is one of the 38 (or 40) objects of samatha development mentioned by the Buddha, most of which were known in the world before his enlightenment. Those that were known already he did not need to set out in detail, although he did of course encourage their development. In the Anapanasati Sutta the Buddha is showing how, in the case of a person who is already highly developed in (a) samatha with breath as object and (b) satipatthana/vipassana, enlightenment may be attained with jhana citta as basis for the enlightenment, as the Buddha himself had done (thus, a very high form of attainment of enlightenment). So this teaching is given for the immediate benefit of those who are ready to attain enlightenment. (That does not mean it is of no benefit to others also.) > ================= > > Likewise, a person may be highly developed in satipatthana but not in samatha leading to mundane jhana. > > Well, then let him or her practice satipatthana. I don't see the problem. > ================= Right. The problem is the idea that, in the case of those for whom neither samatha nor satipatthana is well developed as yet, the Buddha was recommending the development of samatha either as a prerequisite for or as a quicker way to attaining enlightenment. > ================= > > > May we have the capacity to engage them! > > > > And may we remember that the (only) time for development is now! > > Yes, and let's do something about it other than say we can't do it! We are "doing something about it" by having this discussion, surely? ;-)) Jon #98134 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 12:54 am Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Alberto (98054) > R: Well if that somehow takes place within a single moment, then a citta could see a concomitant nama rising and falling away in that same moment, but it can't see another citta since there is only one at a time, and it can't see itself, ... > > A: ... > The mind door processes all six class of objects, including visible....tangible (ad thinkable, dhammarammana, as well), once more after they've been through a sense door process ... as nimitta (sign/shadow/facsimile), for instance the nimitta of visible object, ruparammana. ... Many thanks for coming in and explaining how it is that sense-door objects can be experienced by the mind-door. > PS In one of her tapes KS describes advanced stages of satipatthana on the lines of > ... there is something then nothing then something again then nothing again then.... Yes, there is a Pali expression in the texts that expresses the idea of there being nothing, then something, then nothing again. I'll post it next time I come across it. To my understanding, this describes the conditioned nature of dhammas that arise. Jon #98135 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 2:52 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------------ <. . .> R: > Um....so where is the quote? Is it hidden somewhere, or if I missed it, is it too hard to give it again? ------------------- Sorry, you are quite right, the "quotes" I gave were little more than sutta names. Some suttas are quoted so frequently at DSG that I assume everyone knows what I am talking about. So when I mentioned the Anattalakkhana Sutta I assumed everyone would be thinking of the following: "Rupa, O bhikkhus, is anatta. If rupa were not anatta then it would not be subject to suffering. "Let this rupa be thus, let this rupa not be thus" such possibilities would also exist. But since rupa is anatta it is subject to suffering, and no possibility exists for [controlling]: "Let this be so, let this not be so. Vedana [sanna, sankhara, vinnana] are anatta . . ." (end quote) ------------------------------ KH: > > I possibly hold the DSG record > for saying the most times, "there are only dhammas!" :-) > > R: > Then why do you think there is a conventional world where conventional objects exist and stay the same and to which anatta doesn't apply? Doesn't make sense to me. ------------------------------ I think we agree the conventional world exists only in the imagination. At best, it can be a reflection - or a shadow - of the dhammas that really exist. At worst it can be sheer hallucination. ----------------------- <. . .> R: > I will now go look up the sutta since you did name it and see what it actually say. Back in a minute. Okay I'm back. Yup, the argument is that since consciousness is given to disease and cannot be controlled it is inappropriate to regard it as self. Anatta is always the CONCLUSION, not the premise. Here's what it says: "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." Do you see the line of argument? Since it's inconstant, it's stressful. Since it is stressful it is not "fitting" to regard it as "mine or what I am." Therefore it is "anatta." Rather than being a characteristic seen in its own right, it is concluded from observing anicca-dukkha. Buddha never says that anatta exists independently; he always says it is drawn from anicca." --------------------------- Look again: it starts with 'Consciousness is anatta.' ---------------- <. . .> KH: > > The inability of a dhamma to be controlled is proof of its inherent characteristic, anatta. (Anattalakkhana Sutta) > > R: > No, it is the DEFINITION of anatta, not PROOF. A dhamma is defined as not-self according to Buddha because it changes and cannot be controlled and therefore causes suffering. Buddha's premise is: that which causes suffering and is subject to change is not to be considered "mine." That is anatta, and Buddha says so, in your own "quote" which you misquoted. ----------------- I can see how you get that idea. It is widely promoted by teachers of eternalism( in particular by Thanissaro B). They say that anatta is not a fact, it is just a way of thinking. They say the Buddha wanted us to simply block out thoughts of "this is mine, this I am, this is my self" in order to concentrate more on our meditation. It's a very widespread teaching, but please don't be misled! Dhammas are, by their nature, anatta. When the anatta nature of dhammas is fully grasped the defilements of lobha ("this is mine") mana ("this I am") and micha-ditthi ("this is my self") are destroyed. ---------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Concepts do not possess the anatta characteristic and accordingly we > cannot say with right understanding that they are uncontrollable. Nor > can we say with right understanding that they are 'controllable' or > 'both controllable and uncontrollable' or 'neither controllable nor > uncontrollable.' (Brahmajala Sutta) > > But we can say dhammas are uncontrollable. That is because (and only > because) they possess the anatta characteristic. > > R: >Oh for God's sake. They are not uncontrollable because they are anatta. They are considered anatta because they are not capable of being controlled. You have ignored the Buddha's logical and sensible argument that dhammas which cause suffering by being temporary and uncontrollable are 'not one's self' and turned it into some kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo. Read the sutta. Now let's check to see if the Brahmajala says that concepts are not subject to anatta. Back in a minute. That's why I like quotes and sources, you can *check* them. Okay I'm back. Well I read the whole long sutta rather quickly, but I couldn't find a single reference to your idea that a "concept is not subject to anatta." Nothing. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta --------------------------------- :-) Once again I should apologise for my shortcuts. I tend to assume that DSG members accept the Brahmajala Suttas a presenting a summary of non-middle-way teachings. The non-middle-way teachings do not deal with conditioned dhammas; they deal with concepts. To ascribe any kind of ultimate reality to concepts is to have wrong view. Therefore, when eternalists and annihilationist say "the self exists" or the "self does not exist" (etc) they are propounding wrong views. So, in my sloppy shorthand way I quoted the Brahmajala as saying that the Dhamma made no pronouncements on whether concepts were controllable, uncontrollable, both or neither. -------------------- R: > Maybe you can go through it and find where you think that is. -------------------- Here's one example of what I was talking about: "Thus does he equivocate, and in like manner about each of such propositions as the following: a. (2) There is not another world. (3) There both is, and is not, another world. (4) There neither is, nor is not, another world. b. (1) There are Chance Beings (so called because they spring into existence, either here or in another world, without the intervention of parents, and seem therefore to come without a cause). (2) There are no such beings. (3) There both are, and are not, such beings. (4) There neither are, nor are not, such beings. c. (1) There is fruit, result, of good and bad actions. (2) There is not. (3) There both is, and is not. (4) There neither is, nor is not. d. (1) A man who has penetrated to the truth[168] continues to exist after death. (2) He does not. (3) He both does, and does not. (4) He neither does, nor does not." (end quote) --------------------------------- R: > Here's what I think about it: Does a concept last forever? --------------------------------- An example of a concept that lasts forever would be an "eternal soul." (An example of a concept that lasts for just a short time would be a "soul that is annihilated at death.") --------------------------------------------- R: > Does it arise and fall away? ---------------------------------------------- I am not sure how "arising" and "falling away" could apply to concepts. I suppose a motor car, for example, could be said to arise in a factory and fall away in a wrecking yard. But that's hardly a profound teaching! :-) ------------------------- R: > Is it part of self? ------------------------ Do you mean, is it controllable? Yes, to some extent a car is controllable. The driver can say "Let my car turn to the left," and turn it to the left . . . -------------------------------- R: > Does it cause suffering? So what would you conclude from that, if you were to think about it? ---------------------------------- I don't know. I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. ----------------------- <. . .> KH: > > I did predict that quotes wouldn't prove anything by themselves (because we would have different understandings of them). > > R: > No, you have to actually read the quote and honor what it says, not make something else up. I quoted, you misquoted. We didn't interpret the same quote differently. The quote does work, but you have to listen to the Buddha and agree with what he says. ------------------------- We see that line taken quite often at DSG: it strikes me more as sloganeering than reasoning. -------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > We simply need to keep the two truths separate in our ways > of understanding. > > R: > That's fine as long as you don't draw conclusions based on it. There are no two truths. To say that concepts do not have the characteristic of anatta is to make the nonsensical statement that they are "part of self," which is not possible, since there is no self. ----------------------------------------- What did you think of the quote Sarah gave you? Hang on, I'll go away Robert-E-style and look for it . :-) No, I couldn't find it. I'll try again . . . Here it is! Message 98049. (Oh, I see now that it wasn't addressed to you, and it may have been from Scott, not from Sarah ). "In MA (ad MN 5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source unknown): Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate -- no third can be. Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie." (end quote) So what are your thoughts on that? ----------------------- <. . .> R: > I think your specialized view of anatta is wrong. It's some kind of esoteric thingy that only exists in the absolute world, and the ordinary world that Buddha preached in doesn't have anatta, anicca or dukkha according to you. Concepts don't cause suffering? Concepts are delusory. What causes suffering? Delusion. ----------------------- Among the many wonderful aspects of the Dhamma is the fact that it teaches absolute reality. For example it teaches that good deeds are good in an absolutely real sense. And the pleasant results of good deeds are pleasant in an absolutely real sense. I find that aspect compelling. The teaching of absolute reality is infinitely more satisfactory than any other theory - in which characteristics of 'right' and 'wrong' exist only in the minds of observers. Ken H #98136 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 30, 2009 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: siila sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, There's one comment in what you wrote to Rob K (and Scott) that I'd also like to comment on. If you read this, no need to reply as usual - --- On Tue, 26/5/09, Phil wrote: >If one is relaxed about the accumulation of bad behaviour in body, speech and mind ("it has already fallen away", says K. Sujin when asked by a person who is concerned about transgression) because there is intellectual understanding of the annataness of the dhammas involved, that surely does not affect the conditioning powers of those dhammas at work in the behaviour. That kamma is still being planted no matter what insight one has afterwards into the anattaness of it. I think it is a grave error for her to talk off a person's concerns by saying "it has already fallen away." ... S: I think it's an important topic to keep raising as you do and so I'd like to stress (again) that the more right understanding develops the more precisely it understands the intricacies of kusala and akusala and sees the danger 'in the smallest faults' when they arise, let alone the 'grossest faults'. This means that at the present moment, if there is wise reflection on past akusala, then such wise reflection is good and to be encouraged. However, usually, and as implied in the concerns about past transgressions, the present dhammas are not associated with any wise reflection. Instead, there is thinking with worry and anxiety, thinking about all kinds of stories associated with the past deeds. This is what the Budha would refer to as unwise consideration which merely leads to more unwise consideration. It is the right understanding of present dhammas for what they are, more and more precisely understood as anatta, as conditioned dhammas such as seeing, visible object, kindness and attachment, which leads to more sincerity, more truthfulness with regard to thought, speech and deeds. This is why it is only the right understanding of the sotapanna, the one who has eradicated all wrong view of self, that eliminates the grossest of faults and leads to the gradual eradication of all other faults. **** This is what I heard on a recording last night and it may be relevant: KS: .....At the moment of tasting, that which tastes is the taste consciousness and the taste just appears as a reality. {This is] the way to study dhamma, to really understand that very moment, the characteristic of reality right now or right then, see. J: Can we apply that to seeing consciousness too... KS: Any moment, any moment and when the pa~n~naa develops on and on, one can see that everything is so meaningless when awareness does not arise. Otherwise it's only thinking, thinking, thinking about the past and the past realities which appear just as nimitta or signs of realities only. So just at the moment of being aware, it has some meaning, is real as we used to talk about realities and that is reality. The other moments, see, past completely, only the sign was left. .... J: I can see the importance of knowing the reality at the present moment, but there's still a strong tendency to give importance to the situational story. KS To have it [awareness] very well firmly established, otherwise there's always no awareness at all. J: Yes, the importance we give to the situation, takes us away from the present moment. KS: Yes, by Conditions, always thinking, just thinking. J: it is always thinking too KS: Taking the reality which has gone as very seriously as somehting which stays permanently, all the time. So in ones's life, no matter it's short or long, the most valuable moment is the understanding of reality as it is, that's all, because it's the absolute reality. No story concerning, no thinking about reality as something permanent which stays. ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #98137 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 30, 2009 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Wed, 27/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >Well, I will be happy to let go of the blame, anyway. After that I will work on letting go of taking credit, and finally I may let go of blaming others. :-) ... S: Yes, letting go of the blame is the easy part:-) Letting go of the credit takes a little more detachment and wisdom! And then, as you say, there's the letting go of blaming others, lol! We can see how being swayed by the worldly conditions is the work of ignorance, attachment and often wrong view... Metta, Sarah ======== #98138 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 30, 2009 4:11 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Wed, 27/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >> S: I wouldn's say the present citta "accesses" all past 'strikes', in that all past 'strikes' have completely fallen away. However, the present citta (and accompanying factors) *is conditioned* by all past 'strikes'. R:> I am assuming that "conditioning" includes its having a "knowing" of the content or discoveries of those "past strikes" so that it is wiser than the preceding cittas by having the accumulated information "up to the moment" so to speak. .... S: Each citta 'knows', in the sense of fully experiencing its object and all past accumulations are 'contained' in the citta at that moment. However, unless a citta is accompanied by panna, I wouldn't refer to it being any the wiser. At this moment, there is thinking about what is seen or heard. All the 'knowledge' of 'past strikes' is accumulated, but there's nothing wise about it all most the time. .... >> S: Don't worry! One 'strike' at a time, one moment at a time. Yes, the accumulation shows up in a single moment.....now we're really getting somewhere! R:> Ha ha, or getting nowhere fast! Where is there to go? Just being silly... .... S: Go to Next Moment? .... >> S: OK, hope all's clear and there are no more bugs (or bug-bears crossing the jogging path, ha!). R:> :-) As long as I can avoid future beatings I should be fine. ... S: :-) Oh well, take care when hanging out with those train-track crossing gangs... Thanks for the fun and light relief and also for hanging around with this gang again... Metta, Sarah ======= #98139 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 4:19 am Subject: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98123) > As I see it, this is a conventional form of "guarding", i.e., being on the > lookout for. I don't think this could be what is meant by guarding the > senses in the teachings, because (a) all the sense-doors are "active" at the > same time, and (b) akusala manifests spontaneously and cannot be prevented. > > Whenever there is awareness of seeing or visible object, there is at that > moment no akusala "reaction" at the mind-door, and there is the development > of the understanding that leads to the eradication of the defilements. > This is a guarding of the senses. > --------------------------------------------------- > I don't follow your item "a" above, ... > ================= In your earlier post you mentioned "guarding against reaction for or against, whatever sense-door is active,", as an illustration of guarding the senses. I was just [pointing out that there is never just one "active" sense-door. As you read this message now, there is not only are there objects being experienced through the eye-door, but also the ear-door and body-door at least. > ================= ... and your item "b" is contrary to the Buddha's teaching on right effort. > ================= I was pointing out that akusala manifests spontaneously, and that akusala already arisen cannot be prevented from arising. > ================= And your second paragraph is largely > incomprehensible to me. Moreover, it says that arising of unwholesome namas > is never directly observed, and that makes mental modification, repeatedly > advocated by the Buddha, impossible. > ================= I did not mean to imply that unwholesome namas can not be directly experienced by sati. However, what we ordinarily call the noticing of unwholesomeness is not what is being spoken of in passages such as the Satipatthana Sutta where it mentions "knowing citta with lust as citta with lust". That knowing is knowing with sati and panna, whereas the conventional noticing is not; it is a kind of thinking about the unwholesome cittas. > ================= (There can be no "heading off at the pass.") > ================= I don't understand the Buddha to be advocating a form of heading off at the pass, nipping in the bud, or other similar treatment. Because that does nothing conduce to a better understanding of the true nature of currently appearing dhammas. > ================= > Everyone would like to have fewer defilements, but it is only be seeing > dhammas as they truly are that the understanding leading to the eradication of > defilements can be developed. > --------------------------------------------- > Yes, correctly seeing and acting appropriately based on that correct > seeing. > ================= As I mentioned above, the Satipatthana Sutta speaks of "knowing citta with lust as citta with lust". That direct knowing with awareness and clear comprehension *is* satipatthana. There is no "appropriate acting" to be done in addition to the direct knowing. > ================= And the appropriate acting is usually against the stream. It > requires active effort. Going with the flow, being "natural," is being led by the > nose by our defilements. > ================= The person who is interested in "knowing citta with lust as citta with lust" is not being led by the nose by defilements. But neither does he/she understand the teachings to require any "action" to be taken on account of already-arisen defilements. It could be argued that the person who thinks that defilements need to "dealt with" is the one who is being led astray by defilements ;-)) Jon #98140 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 4:23 am Subject: [dsg] Not self vs. not-self: clarification requested (was: Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98125) > But I still think that, in terms of philosophical debate, it is more > correct to say "the notion of a unicorn is a false one" than to say "unicorns > don't exist". > ---------------------------------------------- > It IS safer, because for some people, and anthropologists often assert > this of primitive societies, the use of a term presupposes existence. > ================= Thanks for stating succinctly what I was trying to convey: the use of a term presupposes existence. > ================= > Also, perfectly safe and simple formulations that don't require mentioning > "notions" would be "There are no unicorns" or "There is no such thing as a > unicorn." > ================= I suspect such rearrangements of word order would be open to the same objection ;-)) Jon #98141 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 6:51 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 2. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Sukin: Talking about `proliferation', this is exactly how I characterize your position. There is proliferation which is craving, conceit and there is wrong view. Am I guilty of all three? What is your evidence? > > While some of us who insist on Anatta and the other two marks being characteristic of realities, this is supported by the fact that in experience dhammas are seen as arising and falling away by conditions beyond control. Well, that's *my* thesis; that "beyond control" is something that is experienced in daily life and that forms the basis for anatta, not something that is a characteristic that inheres in the dhamma itself. How could uncontrollability be a feature of a dhamma itself? It is a relation between that which wants to control it and itself. The reason it is not controllable is because it is not a part of self and is constantly changing due to conditions, and because it arises due to conditions, not self. These are relations, not features. > There is no insistence therefore on following the dictates of a `self' in any of these three forms, to make sati and panna arise. Not at anytime, let alone in the idea of following some rite and ritual as in `formal meditation'. When exactly does this wonderful state take place? Are you enjoying it right now, or is it just a fantasy? > This is in accordance with the Dhamma and is an instance of Right View, which is what the development of wisdom all about. So you don't really have to worry about us encouraging wrong view when it comes to this. We are not trying to catch the `anatta characteristic'? You don't have to catch it; you already have a fully developed concept that it is not a relation but a 'thing' and that it is part of the 'real dhamma' that no one can see. > And this is no mysticism and our faith in the Abhidhamma is not blind. But it is a philosophy, something you believe in; not something you perceive yourself. > On the other hand, given your focus, I think that you are missing out on what is really important. While you state that the point is to understand namas and rupas, failing to see that this very moment is conditioned, particularly when thinking to `meditate', you invariably follow the dictates of the proliferation which is wrong view, and of craving. Really? You must be a mind reader. How do you know what I follow or whether I am subject to wrong view? I think there are some admonitions against this kind of presumption. But please, continue to fantasize about my mental state. Enjoy. > Craving and conceit actually are not the immediate problem however, That is good to know -- given that my craving and conceit level are so high...according to your fantasy about me... > with wrong view still so dominating, Really? Buddha will be pleased to know that you are omniscient and have the panna necessary to review and judge the thoughts of others. Thanks for you inventory of my "craving, conceit and wrong view." Now that I know that I have these, I will scrub extra hard. > these two would likely become the object of self / wrong view when there is concern about how they can lessen. Tell me what else I am concerned about - I'm fascinated! > It is the same with all dhammas, including sati and panna which we would like to have more of. Who is "we?" > Therefore as far as I'm concerned, it is you who is encouraging self view and wrong practice when you think in terms of `things to do' and tie this to a projected idea about what might be the result, namely what anatta is and when it is known. "As far as I am concerned." That says it all. You have develop[ed an opinion, mistaken it for the truth, and are hanging onto your own view which is based on...the same opinion. Well, I hope you enjoy your circular reasoning which supports your judgment of me. I hope the circular movement of this thought process does not make you too dizzy! > Your insistence on getting a description of anatta which satisfies you, this too impresses upon me as being due to self view. No, not that "satisfies me," that shows that you have any idea of what anatta is supposed to be as a positive characteristic. I will accept *any* definition at all, but no one can give me one! What a surprise! Because you can't 'see,' 'discern' or do anything else with a 'not-self.' It's a nonexistent object, just like uncontrollability is an adjective and not a noun! Some people are so hypnotized by their own generalized dogma, eg, "it must be a positive characteristic" without even knowing what that means or what a positive 'anatta' would look like, that they cannot make the most basic sense out of the logic of the Buddha's teaching. I believe that the Abhidhamma is not the enemy of the Buddha's teachings as expressed in the suttas, but I think that some interpreters of the Abhidhamma have obscured the meaning of the suttas in favor of a much more opaque understanding. We should not make the teachings less clear and then justify it by saying that 'we are not arahats so we have no idea what it is.' Pariyatti is closer than that, it is right in the suttas! Read them and accept them, and if your concept contradicts or obscures those characteristics, throw your concepts away, not the teachings! Anyway, thanks for the ego-workout. It's always nice to have speculations, judgments and other non-factual ideas thrown at one, just to see if any of them stick. I hope that when the kamma comes around, it doesn't hit you in too sensitive an area. You know that the cycle of D.O. waits for no man, so we all have to be careful of what we proliferate, yes? :-) > OK, I said it. :-) And you shouldn't have! Just kidding! > I know I have been quite forthright with some of my remarks That's one way of putting it! > and I accept that I may be wrong. Either way please don't take any of it personally. The only thing I take personally is that the posts are so long that I don't have time to do my errands. It's not your fault, but I will blame you anyway! :-) > I had no idea how long this post was getting until I just printed it out to review. I guess I was enjoying my proliferations all this while. :-) Well, there is no escape from that. I am surely guilty of the same. So let me end with one question: Can you describe anatta as a positive characteristic? Give it a shot! What does it look like? And what does uncontrollability look like without a potential controlling factor to enjoy this relation with the dhamma? :-) I'll keep asking until someone who believes in such a thingy gives me a description. Otherwise, I'll just keep assuming that no one actually knows what it is, because it is just a vague concept. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98142 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 6:55 am Subject: Skillful thieves (was: [dsg] Re: effort.] [1] epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > But just talking about yoga mats, I have a great thin travel one which goes round the world with me and which I use outside in the grounds every morning here. Once I thought I'd lost it and was in a state of great anxiety! That's great to have a travel mat that doesn't take up too much space. And glad you didn't lose it! > I'll look forward to more tales from the Epstein Memoirs like Nina! That is very kind! Well, nice to talk to you, and I will go off to bed. Hopefully I won't dream about any black bears! [although they are merely dhammas that arise in the moment...] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98143 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 6:59 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > > Regarding: > > R: "...The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion..." > > Scott: I think that the view contained above is the main impediment to an understanding of lakkha.na. To consider that '[t]he idea is to see insubstantiality' renders it very difficult to grasp the meaning of what it is for a dhamma to 'have a characteristic.' The implication, as I read the above, is that 'insubstantiality' must also be a characteristic (given that it is to be 'seen'). > > Do you have any textual support for the suggestion that 'the idea is to see insubstantiality?' Maybe we could look at these. To see that statement in that way is to do the same thing to insubstantiality as to anatta and everything else that is a characteristic. I don't mean to suggest that "insubstantiality" is a *thing in itself* that can be "seen," just that one can observe that things are not what we think they are. They are not solid, they do not maintain the same form, they do not have the definition and stability and dependable existence that we think they do. That is just another way of saying that they are subject to anicca, that they are the product of conditions, cannot be controlled and are constantly shifting and changing. So I am not saying anything unusual. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #98144 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 30, 2009 10:04 am Subject: The World in the Buddhist Sense. nilovg Dear friends, Letter I. The realities in and around ourselves. Tokyo, 15 January 1971 Dear Mr. G., You asked me questions about mindfulness in daily life. You said that you can be aware while shaving, but that you are not yet sure about the experience of different characteristics of nåma (mental phenomena) and rúpa (physical phenomena). I would like to quote from the Kindred Sayings (IV, Salåyatana-vagga, Second Fifty, Chapter IV, § 84, Transitory). We read that Ånanda asked the Buddha what the world is: “The world! The world!” is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go? What is transitory by nature, Ånanda, is called “the world” in the Ariyan discipline. And what, Ånanda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Ånanda, is transitory by nature…objects…tongue…mind is transitory by nature, mind-states, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, whatsoever pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling arises owing to mind-contact, that also is transitory by nature. What is thus transitory, Ånanda, is called “the world” in the Ariyan discipline. We cannot yet directly experience the impermanence of nåma and rúpa, but we will know the “world in the sense of the ariyan discipline” if we develop right understanding of absolute realities, paramattha dhammas, by being mindful of their characteristics as they appear one at a time through the six doorways. We are used to thinking that there are the world of our work, of our home, of meditation, so many kinds of worlds. Actually we should consider what the realities are which can be directly experienced. These are the nåma and rúpa which appear through the six doors. There is seeing-consciousness, which experiences visible object through the eye-door. There is hearing-consciousness which experiences sound through the ear-door. There is smelling-consciousness which experiences odour through the nose. There is tasting-consciousness which experiences flavour through the tongue. There is body- consciousness which experiences tangible object through the body- door. There is mind-consciousness which experiences mind-objects through the mind-door. Thus, there are actually six worlds appearing through the six doors. It will take a long time to develop a clearer understanding of the six worlds. Thinking about them is not enough. In being mindful of different characteristics we will come to understand “the world in the sense of the ariyan discipline” through our own experience. ****** Nina. #98145 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 30, 2009 10:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: siila nilovg Dear Sarah, I appreciated this tape. It made me think of a question asked about paramattha dhammas. Someone said that he was bored of paramattha dhammas. He preferred suttas because there are more stories in the suttas. Kh Sujin answered that we do not know realities because we enjoy stories more. But she emphasizes all the time that thinking is not forbidden, it arises naturally. Nina. Op 30-mei-2009, om 5:58 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > J: Yes, the importance we give to the situation, takes us away from > the present moment. > > KS: Yes, by Conditions, always thinking, just thinking. > > J: it is always thinking too > > KS: Taking the reality which has gone as very seriously as > somehting which stays permanently, all the time. > > So in ones's life, no matter it's short or long, the most valuable > moment is the understanding of reality as it is, that's all, > because it's the absolute reality. No story concerning, no thinking > about reality as something permanent which stays. > ***** #98146 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The sixth door sprlrt Hi Sarah (Ann & all), Just posting some further comments on the topic of cetana, kamma and pakati-upanissaya. Cetana cetasika arises, along with sañña, vedana and the other four universal cetasikas, in all cittas, kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya. It is called a (nanakkhanika) kamma when, arising with a kusala or akusala citta, it performs a specific kamma through one of the three doors of kamma (in this context door, dvara, refers to the dhamma through which kusala or akusala cetana cetasika can perform kamma): the mind door (the kusala/akusala citta itself), the body door (kayaviññatti, intimation through the body, a citta-produced, asabhava (without its own characteristic) rupa, arising in kalapas of nine or twelve rupas (8 avinibhoga, inseparables + kayaviññatti [+ the three vikara rupas, the qualities of rupa, of lightness/lahuta, plasticity/muduta, workability/kammanta]), and vaciviññatti, speech intimation, also citta-only-produced asabhava rupa arising in groups of ten or thirteen rupas (8 avinibhoga + vaciviññatti + sadda/sound [+ the three vikara rupas]) Any single kamma is related to the corresponding cetana cetasika that performed it, before fallling away, and to that one cetana only. It will result in the single occurrence of a vipaka citta, eye consciousness for instance, and nothing else. Take the (nowadays only hipothetical) case of an arahant, having experienced nibbana for the last time and eradicated moha and all akusala dhammas completely, "his/her" cetana cetasika won't perform any kusala kamma anymore, though still arising & falling, "willing" the body to move and the voice to speak, and accumulating, in the 8 maha kiriya cittas replacing their maha kusala counterparts). But all this won't have any effect on kusala or akusala kammas performed before the attainment of arahatship. These kammas would still result in kusala and akusala vipakas, such as eye consciousness, until cuti citta would arise and fall, the last citta preceeding parinibbana. The development of panna through satipattana can't affect past kamma and its results, nothing can, apart from the cuti citta of an arahant. But it accumulates, by pakati-upanissaya paccaya, habitual strong dependence, along with all the other (kusala) dhammas making up sankhara khandha, which includes cetana cetasika also while isn't performing any kamma. Alberto #98147 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 30, 2009 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/30/2009 12:19:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: I don't understand the Buddha to be advocating a form of heading off at the pass, nipping in the bud, or other similar treatment. Because that does nothing conduce to a better understanding of the true nature of currently appearing dhammas. ============================= The first of the 4 right exertions is given as "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen." This is an explicit heading off of akusala states, the active preventing of the arising of not-yet-arisen unwholesome states. More generally, he said in An 2.19 "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'" Here he doesn't say that akusala states *may be abandoned*, that it IS possible to abandon them. With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98148 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 30, 2009 10:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 5/30/2009 12:19:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: It could be argued that the person who thinks that defilements need to "dealt with" is the one who is being led astray by defilements ;-)) ======================== And it could be argued that the Buddha said explicitly the contrary! ;-)) With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98149 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 30, 2009 11:38 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) jonoabb Hi Rob (and Scott) I think this was meant for Scott, so will leave it to him to reply. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob Ep, > > > > Regarding: > > > > R: "...The ability to perceive the nature of the dhamma so that one sees that there is no self. It's easy to take all these perceptions and knowings and panna and turn them into positive little thingies that inhabit the absolute universe, but I think such are mistaken concepts. The idea is to see insubstantiality, not more and more little things that are given greater substance. That is inventing a samsara that is real, instead of one that is based on delusion..." > > > > Scott: I think that the view contained above is the main impediment to an understanding of lakkha.na. To consider that '[t]he idea is to see insubstantiality' renders it very difficult to grasp the meaning of what it is for a dhamma to 'have a characteristic.' The implication, as I read the above, is that 'insubstantiality' must also be a characteristic (given that it is to be 'seen'). > > > > Do you have any textual support for the suggestion that 'the idea is to see insubstantiality?' Maybe we could look at these. > > To see that statement in that way is to do the same thing to insubstantiality as to anatta and everything else that is a characteristic. I don't mean to suggest that "insubstantiality" is a *thing in itself* that can be "seen," just that one can observe that things are not what we think they are. They are not solid, they do not maintain the same form, they do not have the definition and stability and dependable existence that we think they do. That is just another way of saying that they are subject to anicca, that they are the product of conditions, cannot be controlled and are constantly shifting and changing. So I am not saying anything unusual. > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = > #98150 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 12:42 am Subject: Kammic Asymmetry... bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Kammic causation of future is asymmetric! Why is it easy to repeat doing much bad, while doing good is hard to do even once? Quickly one ruins one's own future by doing just one single wrong or evil action, just like one single drop of ink ruins the clarity of even a large glass of water... However: Slowly one purifies one's past behaviour by accumulation of numerous good deeds, just like single drops of water slowly or never clarifies even a small glass of ink... This asymmetry propels beings downward: The difficulty of doing even a little good; The ease of doing even much wrong evil... Propels most beings into the downfall! ASYMMETRY-1 Easy & swift is it to do what is detrimental, Painful both to oneself and for others. While that, which is advantageous to both oneself & others, is quite difficult to do. Dhammapada Illustration 163 Background Story 163 ASYMMETRY-2 Easy it is to see the faults of others. Hard it is to see one's own flaws. We seek after others faults like filtering even pure water, but we cover up our own flaws like a gambler hide his cards. Dhammapada Illustration 252 Background Story 252 More on Kamma (Intentional Action) Sanskrit~Karma: Kamma_is_intention , Intention_is_Kamma , What is Right Action? Kamma_is_improvable , Buddha_on_Kamma , Kamma_and_Fruit Good_Action_dilutes_Evil_Kamma , Inevitable_Consequences Good_Action_enhances_other_Good_Kamma , Rebirth_and_Kamma Evil_Kamma_enhances_other_Evil_Kamma , Impossible Kamma_leading_to_short_ &_long_life, Kamma_leading_to_Health_ &_Sickness Kamma_leading_to_Low_or_High_Birth , Kamma_leading_to_Power_or_Disrespect Kamma_leading_to_Wealth_or_Poverty , Effect_of_Action_(kamma)_is_Delayed Kamma_leading_to_Beauty_ &_Ugliness, Kamma_leading_to_Stupidity_or_Intelligence , The_Mirror … Have a nice symmetric day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Asymmetry Propels... #98151 From: "Scott" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 2:57 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) scottduncan2 Dear Howard: Regarding: H: "In this regard, please consider the Uraga Sutta material I provide at the end of this post." Scott: You offered (I add the Paa.li): Uragasutta.m "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." 5. Yo naajjhagamaa bhavesu saara.m, vicina.m pupphamiva [pupphamiva (bahuusu)] udumbaresu; So bhikkhu jahaati orapaara.m, urago ji.n.namivattaca.m puraa.na.m. PTS PED: "Ajjhagaa [adhi + agaa 3rd sg. pret. of adhigacchati (q. v. for similar forms) he came to, got to, found, obtained, experience..." "Adhigacchati [adhi + gacchati] to get to, to come into possession of, to acquire, attain, find; fig. to understand..." "Bhavati...to become, to be, exist, behave etc...." "Saara...4. value..." "Vicinati (cinaati) [vi+cinaati] 1. to investigate, examine, discriminate..." "He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: 'This is all unreal,' â€" such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." 9. Yo naaccasaarii na paccasaarii, sabba.m vitathamidanti ~natvaa [utvaa (syaa. pii. ka.)] loke; So bhikkhu jahaati orapaara.m, urago ji.n.namivattaca.m puraa.na.m. PTS PED: "~Natvaa etc.: see jaanaati." "Jaanaati...(1) Intrs. to know, to have or gain knowledge, to be experienced, to be aware, to find out...2. Trs. to know recognize, be familiar with (usually c. acc., but also with gen.: J i.337; ii.243), to have knowledge of, experience, find; to infer, conclude, distinguish, state, define..." Scott: As you know, Howard, I don't agree with the insubstantialist view. These passages in translation, although containing, in the fifth verse, the key words 'without core or substance', are not, in my opinion, to be understood as support for the argument that a dhamma does not have its characteristic, as I believe must be the inference. I suspect there is little need to re-invent this wheel. ;-) A reading more in line with the meaning, I would suggest, would have the gist of inferring that the realisation of the lack of value in existence is a function of experience by the appropriate consciousness - which, in this case, given the term '~natvaa', as that relates to 'jaanaati' - is the particular purview of pa~n~naa. Sincerely, Scott. #98152 From: han tun Date: Sun May 31, 2009 3:00 am Subject: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (continuation) Questions and comments are welcome. Please note that I am using square brackets for quotation marks. If I type quotation mark, it appears in Email message as un-readable characters. -------------------- If the body can be seen as only elements, the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Solidity can be internal or external, outside the body. Solidity is also present in what we call a mountain or a rock, in all material phenomena. Saariputta reminded the monks of the impermanence of the element of extension: [There comes a time, your reverences, when the element of extension that is external is agitated; at that time the external element of extension disappears. The impermanence of this ancient external element of extension can be shown, your reverences, its liability to destruction can be shown, its liability to decay can be shown, its liability to change can be shown. So what of this short-lived body derived from craving? There is not anything here for saying, [I], or [mine] or [I am]....] The impermanence of the element of solidity may manifest itself in such calamities of nature as an earthquake, but actually at each and every moment ruupas arise and then fall away, they do not last. -------------------- Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements to be continued. with metta, Han #98153 From: han tun Date: Sun May 31, 2009 3:03 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear All, We have just finished reading the earth element of the four great elements. I just want to think aloud on one aspect. It says that at each and every moment ruupas arise and then fall away, they do not last. I can accept that if we are talking about the ruupas of the human beings. The medical science shows that the body cells are dying and regenerating all the time. But when it comes to external inanimate things like rocks and mountains, it is difficult to appreciate that the *rupaas* of rocks and mountains are arising and falling away at all times, (or) that the hardness that is experienced by touching a rock is already different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. Just thinking aloud! Yours truly, Han #98154 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 3:27 am Subject: Nibbana/A.N. reverendagga... Hi everyone! I'm just wondering ... does anyone know of the spot in the A.N.where BOTH nibbana and parinnibbana are described as the different levels of Jhana? I just KNOW its there somewhere. Thanks! Bhikkhu aggacitto #98155 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 4:56 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > As I see it, it's not a question of what "anatta" (in the abstract) means, but of what is meant by anatta in the context of the characteristic of anatta. What do you consider to be the characteristic of anatta? Can you give a basic definition - I don't mean your own, but from any source that you would take as authoritative. I take it to mean "lack or absence of a self or of belonging to a self." Do you agree that this lack of self or selfhood is the characteristic of anatta? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #98156 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:02 am Subject: Re: Alteration within a single moment (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > ================= > > > As I said before, the knowledge gained by panna is cumulative, so much of what you say here would hold true. > > > > OMG, I think we agree on something. I need a drink! ;-) > > ================= > > I suspect the only time you agree with anything I say is when you need an excuse for another drink ;-)) > > Jon Trust me, our concordance on the cumulative nature of panna is much more exciting than a mere drink - unless it is amrita of course. :-) Be well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98157 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:12 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > The purpose of giving the teaching is to inform those who are capable of benefitting from it. Sure, one must have the appropriate knowledge base to make use of many different teachings, both worldly and spiritual. However, the point is that for those who can benefit from it, it is a set of instructions, not just descriptions. It gives them "beneficial knowledge" in their practice of a particular technique or activity. If one is able to engage with samatha meditation, or satipatthana, then that knowledge is applicable to them. For those individuals it is an instruction that can "benefit" them in doing that practice. That is quite different from saying "there is no practice" because there is "no one to practice." My contention is that "there is no one to practice," but that doesn't mean that "there is no practice." The fact is that one's practice, like the path itself, gets along quite well without a self to engage in it. > > ================= > > > Where a passage is particularly applicable to those who have attained an advanced level of samatha and/or vipassana, the passage should not be read as setting out a path for all and sundry. > > > > I don't think we can determine who something might or might not apply to; although many appear to want to try to make such determinations. But in any case, if it is setting out a path for *anyone* it is still setting out a path. So can that be done at all or not? > > ================= > > The Buddha taught the way to enlightenment. The real question is the nature of that way, that is, whether it involves following a form of practice (doing certain specific things), or whether it is more in the nature of coming to a better understanding of the way things are with the assistance of the teachings as guide or reminder to condition the (re-)arising of sati/panna. I don't think it's an either/or choice there. I think the nature o things is such that people are led by conditions to do this or that, but in doing so both information and instructions crystalize the way in which that is to be done, and takes one from one stage to the next, just as accumulations in other areas, eg, panna, take place. > > ================= > > > A person may be highly skilled in anapanasati but not in satipatthana. Samatha and vipassana involve different "strains" of panna. > > > > But the question is whether there is a relation or not. If there is no relation, then why teach anapanasati to these people? If there is a relation, then it *is* being taught to them, in which case it is an instruction. So which is it? > > ================= > > Mindfulness of breathing is one of the 38 (or 40) objects of samatha development mentioned by the Buddha, most of which were known in the world before his enlightenment. > > Those that were known already he did not need to set out in detail, although he did of course encourage their development. > > In the Anapanasati Sutta the Buddha is showing how, in the case of a person who is already highly developed in (a) samatha with breath as object and (b) satipatthana/vipassana, enlightenment may be attained with jhana citta as basis for the enlightenment, as the Buddha himself had done (thus, a very high form of attainment of enlightenment). > > So this teaching is given for the immediate benefit of those who are ready to attain enlightenment. (That does not mean it is of no benefit to others also.) Well the parenthetical here is an important one - if it is beneficial to others as well, that is perhaps the issue; [whether or not the premise that it is especially for the benefit of those ready for enlightenment is true or not.] > > ================= > > ================= > > > > May we have the capacity to engage them! > > > > > > And may we remember that the (only) time for development is now! > > > > Yes, and let's do something about it other than say we can't do it! > > We are "doing something about it" by having this discussion, surely? ;-)) I certainly hope so. Nice to engage with you! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98158 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:32 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > An example of a concept that lasts forever would be an "eternal soul." > (An example of a concept that lasts for just a short time would be a > "soul that is annihilated at death.") Ken, you are speaking about these as if they actually exist. A concept arises in the mind, it does not arise in the world. A "motorcar" is not a concept; one *has* a concept "motorcar." The actual motorcar that you drive is not a concept, it is a set of shifting realities; one mistakes these realities for a single thing, a "car." That does not mean that you can "control the concept" of car. You can turn the wheel and the car will turn, but it will not turn in exact conformity to how you turn the wheel, which is why cars crash quite frequently. They are not controllable and they cause suffering, even though we mistakenly conceptualize them. Objects which are made up of dhammas and which we falsely conceptualize still cause suffering and are still temporary and changeable and not truly subject to control. You confuse the fact that we *think* they are controllable with the actual experience that they are not. They are anatta, anicca and dukkha, even if we "think" they are not. Likewise the "concept of an eternal soul" is not eternal itself. The idea is that the soul is eternal, that's what the concept is "about." But the concept of the eternal soul arises and falls away in a moment, just like any other nama. You are mistaking the false content of the concept with the actual existence of the concept as an object of mind. As concept, the concept only lasts a moment. There is no eternal soul which is "eternal." That is the false concept. The false concept of eternal soul is itself temporary, uncontrollable and not-self, even if one thinks it is otherwise [with another false concept.] > --------------------------------------------- > R: > Does it arise and fall away? > ---------------------------------------------- > > I am not sure how "arising" and "falling away" could apply to concepts. > I suppose a motor car, for example, could be said to arise in a factory > and fall away in a wrecking yard. But that's hardly a profound teaching! And that is not a concept. Concepts don't have lives and histories, they are mental objects that arise for a moment. When you are not thinking of your motorcar, does it exist? > ------------------------- > R: > Is it part of self? > ------------------------ > > Do you mean, is it controllable? Yes, to some extent a car is > controllable. The driver can say "Let my car turn to the left," and turn > it to the left . . . That is a coincidence, if you are lucky. :-) That would also be part of the false concept or presumption of control. So you think that "concepts" inhabit the world and drive around and wind up in the wrecking yard? Is there a universe of concepts that populate the earth like holograms? > -------------------------------- > R: > Does it cause suffering? So what would you > conclude from that, if you were to think about it? > ---------------------------------- > > I don't know. I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. Very possibly not. If I take a sip of tea, the taste on the tongue is real, the concept "tea" is not real. But the "tea" is not the concept, and the concept is not the tea. There is no "conceptual tea" in the world, there is only the touching, tasting etc. and the concept is another phenomenon that arises when I see the teacup or taste the tea, or whatever. It is a mental phenomenon, not a worldly one. Is a concept not considered a nama? Does it have independent reality? > ----------------------- Thanks for going off "Robert E." style and finding this nice quote: > "In MA (ad MN 5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source > unknown): > Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate -- no third can be. > Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he > Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie." > (end quote) > > So what are your thoughts on that? My thought is that one can indeed use conventional speech to refer to conventional objects - no problem there. But one who is discussing reality should not confuse concepts with realities or think that concepts actually exist. If you thinkt he "two truths" means that in the "conventional world" conceptual objects "really exist," I think that is a mistaken notion. > ----------------------- > Among the many wonderful aspects of the Dhamma is the fact that it > teaches absolute reality. For example it teaches that good deeds are > good in an absolutely real sense. And the pleasant results of good deeds > are pleasant in an absolutely real sense. > > I find that aspect compelling. Compelling or not, it may or may not be the truth. The teaching of absolute reality is > infinitely more satisfactory than any other theory - in which > characteristics of 'right' and 'wrong' exist only in the minds of > observers. Well, absolute right and wrong don't seem to exist to me. I think that reality is beyond both conventional and unconventional truth. Buddha has said on a number of occasions that the truth is "neither real nor unreal," in other words, beyond all such definitions, including "right and wrong." Right and wrong are concepts; they are evaluations. If they are ultimate truths to you, please explain how this is so. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98159 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:35 am Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, > > > --- On Wed, 27/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > >Well, I will be happy to let go of the blame, anyway. After that I will work on letting go of taking credit, and finally I may let go of blaming others. :-) > ... > S: Yes, letting go of the blame is the easy part:-) Letting go of the credit takes a little more detachment and wisdom! And then, as you say, there's the letting go of blaming others, lol! > > We can see how being swayed by the worldly conditions is the work of ignorance, attachment and often wrong view... Yes, powerful forces! At least it is good to have a sense of being swayed and buffeted by them, instead of feeling "in control." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98160 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:39 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: :-) Oh well, take care when hanging out with those train-track crossing gangs... > > Thanks for the fun and light relief and also for hanging around with this gang again... I am happy to hang around with the good folks here. I really am grateful for some of the folks here putting up with me. Particularly thanks to Jon lately. :-) He is very patient. Ken has put up with a lot of abuse too! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98161 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:41 am Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob (and Scott) > > I think this was meant for Scott, so will leave it to him to reply. I think you are right. Sorry about that. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #98162 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 31, 2009 6:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep & all, --- On Fri, 29/5/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >I'm not going to purposely stupefy myself for no reason. The word says 'not self,' that's what it says. ... S: This reminds me of the kava ceremony I attended when visiting an inland village after a long trip up river the other day. A kava ceremony is the traditional way of greeting visitors. We are passed bowls of this local drink made from the kava root by the Chief of the village and his attendants and after a clap of the hands, have to drink the contents in one 'strike'. Like you, I didn't wish to "stupefy myself", so I declined (as I'd done at a previous such ceremony), but this time it led to some disappointment and consternation on the part of my hosts. I tried to make up for it by joining in their other ceremonies (some others, definitely not my forte at all), but I'd failed the kava test in their eyes. When I chatted to Jon later, he reminded me about the explanation of the fifth precept as referring to intoxicants that lead to negligene, i.e. immoral conduct or breach of the other precepts. Not every addictive or stupefying substance necessarily has this tendency, e.g. nicotine or caffeine. Well, it all depends on conditions at the time how one responds in any given situation. And as for the stupefying effects, I've been having plenty of cups of chamomile tea, a scalp massage last evening, lazing around in a hammock at the weekend listening to the waves, restorative yoga and wanders under the stars.... It all comes down to the citta and as you say "the word says 'not self,'":-). Metta, Sarah ========= #98163 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep & all, >> >R:Well, I will be happy to let go of the blame, anyway. After that I will work on letting go of taking credit, and finally I may let go of blaming others. :-) > ... >> S: Yes, letting go of the blame is the easy part:-) Letting go of the credit takes a little more detachment and wisdom! And then, as you say, there's the letting go of blaming others, lol! > >> We can see how being swayed by the worldly conditions is the work of ignorance, attachment and often wrong view... R:>Yes, powerful forces! At least it is good to have a sense of being swayed and buffeted by them, instead of feeling "in control." ... S: And talking about being "swayed and buffeted by them" and also the "blame game", let me re-quote from a couple of texts given before by Nina and myself: >Nina: We read in the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Eights, Ch I, par. 6) that the Buddha spoke to the monks about the eight worldly conditions which obsess the world. He spoke with regard to those who have not attained enlightenment: ... Monks, gain comes to the unlearned common average folk, who reflect not thus: "This gain which has come is impermanent, painful and subject to change." They know it not as it really is. Loss comes ... fame... obscurity... blame... praise... contentment... pain.... They reflect not that such are impermanent, painful and subject to change, nor do they know these conditions as they really are. Gain, loss and so forth take possession of their minds and hold sway there. They welcome the gain which has arisen; they rebel against loss. They welcome the fame which has arisen; they rebel against obscurity. They welcome the praise which has arisen; they rebel against blame. They welcome the contentment which has arisen; they rebel against pain. Thus given over to compliance and hostility, they are not freed from birth, old age, death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, miseries and tribulations. I say such people are not free from ill.< .. **** Sarah:> I'm reminded of the following Dhp verses and story about how even the Great Disciples were blamed for what they spoke or didn’t speak: http://www.vipassana.info/Dhammapada_contents.htm (Translated by Daw Mya Tin, M.A., Burma Pitaka Association (1986)) >Verses 227 to 230 XVII (7) The Story of Atula the Lay-disciple While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verses (227) to (230) of this book, with reference to Atula and his companions. Once, Atula and his companions numbering five hundred, wishing to listen to words of dhamma, went to Thera Revata. The thera however was very aloof like a lion; he did not say anything to them. They were very much dissatisfied and so they went to Thera Sariputta. When Thera Sariputta learned why they bad come, he expounded exhaustively on the Abhidhamma. He also was not to their liking, and they grumbled that Thera Sariputta had been too lengthy and too profound. Next, Atula and his party approached Thera Ananda. Thera Ananda expounded to them the bare essentials of the Dhamma. This time, they remarked that Thera Ananda had been too brief and too sketchy. Finally they came to the Buddha and said to him, "Venerable Sir, we have come to listen to your teaching. We have been to other teachers before we come here, but we are not satisfied with any of them. Thera Revata did not bother to teach us and he just kept silent; Thera Sariputta was too exhaustive and the Dhamma he taught us was too difficult for us. As for Thera Ananda, he was too brief and too sketchy. We do not like any of their discourses." To them the Buddha said, "My disciples, blaming others is not something new. There is no one in this world who is never blamed; people would blame even a king, or even a Buddha. To be blamed or to be praised by a fool is of no consequence; one is truly blamed only when he is blamed by a wise man, and truly praised only when praised by a wise man." Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows; Verse 227: It is not new, O Atula! It has always been done from ancient times. They blame one who is silent, they blame one who speaks much, they blame one who speaks little. There is no one in this world who is not blamed. Verse 228: There never has been, there never will be, nor is there now, anyone who is always blamed or always praised. Verses 229 - 230: If the wise praise him day after day, knowing him to be truly faultless, wise and endowed with knowledgc and virtue, who would blame him, who is like a nikkha of pure gold? The devas praise him; he is praised even by the great Brahmas. At the end of the discourse Atula and his companions attained Sotapatti Fruition.< end quote> ***** Metta, Sarah ======== #98164 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, We just discussed this sutta, a favorite of Lodewijk, the other day. I like to add something. Op 30-mei-2009, om 16:01 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > More generally, he said in An 2.19 "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. > It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not > possible to > abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is > unskillful.' ..... > Here > he doesn't say that akusala states *may be abandoned*, that it IS > possible > to abandon them. ------- N: Yes, it is possible. The sotaapanna has developed vipassanaa, right understanding, to the degree that coarse akusala can be eradicated. You also quote the four right efforts, and these are accompanied by right view of the eightfold Path. It is pa~n~naa that does the work of abondoning. That is the meaning of this sutta. It may seem strange that one has to begin to understand seeing, visible object and all dhammas that appear as just dhamma, conditioned realities. But this is the sure way leading on and on, although it takes a long time. The idea of self has to be eliminated little by little, otherwise one makes the failure of thinking that a self has to make an effort, even though one does not use the word self. One may have the intention not to be angry, but anger still arises. This means that pa~n~naa is not strong enough to see the danger of anger. More listening, considering the Dhamma is necessary for the growth of pa~n~naa. Nina. #98165 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:34 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) nilovg Dear Han, Op 31-mei-2009, om 5:03 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > But when it comes to external inanimate things like rocks and > mountains, it is difficult to appreciate that the *rupaas* of rocks > and mountains are arising and falling away at all times, (or) that > the hardness that is experienced by touching a rock is already > different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. > > Just thinking aloud! ------- N: After a long time we can notice a change in a rock, but this is not the stage of vipassanaa that realizes the momentary change of rupas, that is, their arising and falling away. Also when we touch a body and hardness is experienced, the impermanence is not realized until that stage of insight has been reached. We may think of the impermanence of the body cells, but that is only thinking, not pa~n~naa that directly realizes the truth. We have to begin at the beginning: what is hardness experienced through touch? It is a rupa, it does not know anything, it is different from nama. Rupa arises because of its own conditions, and nobody can make it arise and cease. It does not belong to us, it is beyond control. Gradually we may have more understanding of its true nature. Nina. #98166 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98147) > ================= > The first of the 4 right exertions is given as "There is the case > where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & > exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities > that have not yet arisen." This is an explicit heading off of akusala > states, the active preventing of the arising of not-yet-arisen unwholesome > states. > ================= Consider the following instance of the non-arising of akusala states that have not yet arisen: A person is tempted to speak harshly to another but refrains from doing so, out of consideration for the other. Here, right effort is one of the mental factors that accompanies that moment of kusala restraint. Compare this with the notion that any arisen anger should be suppressed (shortened) as much as possible whenever it is noticed to be present. > ================= > More generally, he said in An 2.19 "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. > It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to > abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is > unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to > you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful > were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is > unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive > to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'" Here > he doesn't say that akusala states *may be abandoned*, that it IS possible > to abandon them. > ============================= I do not argue with the statement that akusala states can be abandoned. It is the manner of that abandoning that is our point of difference. Jon #98167 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:52 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98155) > ================= > > As I see it, it's not a question of what "anatta" (in the abstract) means, but of what is meant by anatta in the context of the characteristic of anatta. > > What do you consider to be the characteristic of anatta? Can you give a basic definition - I don't mean your own, but from any source that you would take as authoritative. > ================= From the Samohavinodani passage previously quoted, I understand anatta as one of the 3 characteristics to mean "insusceptibility to control". > ================= > I take it to mean "lack or absence of a self or of belonging to a self." Do you agree that this lack of self or selfhood is the characteristic of anatta? > ================= I think all 3 characteristics are difficult to understand. I can agree that "lack of self" is the literal meaning of anatta, just as "suffering" is the literal meaning of "dukkha", but I would not like to adopt these terms as "definitions" of the characteristics themselves. Jon #98168 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:56 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Robert E (98157) > ================= > > The purpose of giving the teaching is to inform those who are capable of benefitting from it. > > Sure, one must have the appropriate knowledge base to make use of many different teachings, both worldly and spiritual. However, the point is that for those who can benefit from it, it is a set of instructions, not just descriptions. It gives them "beneficial knowledge" in their practice of a particular technique or activity. > ================= I would not call the imparting of beneficial knowledge an "instruction", although I suppose "instruction" can have that meaning (as in "instructions for use"; and the verb "instruct" can of course mean "teach"). To me, "instruction" tends to connote "order" or something similar. I prefer to keep to the term "teaching". And in his teaching I see the Buddha as explaining the way things are, rather than setting out specific activities to be followed. > ================= If one is able to engage with samatha meditation, or satipatthana, then that knowledge is applicable to them. For those individuals it is an instruction that can "benefit" them in doing that practice. > ================= I suppose so. > ================= > That is quite different from saying "there is no practice" because there is "no one to practice." My contention is that "there is no one to practice," but that doesn't mean that "there is no practice." The fact is that one's practice, like the path itself, gets along quite well without a self to engage in it. > ================= On the issue of "practice", what I've said is that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice. It's a matter of having a better understanding of the way things are, gained from reflecting on how what one has heard and understood relates to the present moment. > ================= > > The Buddha taught the way to enlightenment. The real question is the nature of that way, that is, whether it involves following a form of practice (doing certain specific things), or whether it is more in the nature of coming to a better understanding of the way things are with the assistance of the teachings as guide or reminder to condition the (re-)arising of sati/panna. > > I don't think it's an either/or choice there. I think the nature o things is such that people are led by conditions to do this or that, but in doing so both information and instructions crystalize the way in which that is to be done, and takes one from one stage to the next, just as accumulations in other areas, eg, panna, take place. > ================= I do not understand the teachings to be telling (instructing) us to do this or that. They are instructive/informative, but not in the sense of laying out a technique to be followed. > ================= > > We are "doing something about it" by having this discussion, surely? ;-)) > > I certainly hope so. Nice to engage with you! > ================= Thanks. I feel the same way too! Jon #98169 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 9:11 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) gazita2002 hallo Nina and Han, this is a wonderful post! its so good to have your 'thinking aloud' Han, and I think Nina's reply is excellant - thank you both. if we dont have constant or at least regular reminders of realities then we forget, or at least I do :-( patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, > Op 31-mei-2009, om 5:03 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > But when it comes to external inanimate things like rocks and > > mountains, it is difficult to appreciate that the *rupaas* of rocks > > and mountains are arising and falling away at all times, (or) that > > the hardness that is experienced by touching a rock is already > > different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. > > > > Just thinking aloud! > ------- > N: After a long time we can notice a change in a rock, but this is > not the stage of vipassanaa that realizes the momentary change of > rupas, that is, their arising and falling away. Also when we touch a > body and hardness is experienced, the impermanence is not realized > until that stage of insight has been reached. We may think of the > impermanence of the body cells, but that is only thinking, not > pa~n~naa that directly realizes the truth. > We have to begin at the beginning: what is hardness experienced > through touch? It is a rupa, it does not know anything, it is > different from nama. Rupa arises because of its own conditions, and > nobody can make it arise and cease. It does not belong to us, it is > beyond control. Gradually we may have more understanding of its true > nature. > > Nina. > > #98170 From: han tun Date: Sun May 31, 2009 9:40 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear Nina and Azita, > Nina: We may think of the impermanence of the body cells, but that is only thinking, not pa~n~naa that directly realizes the truth. > Nina: We have to begin at the beginning: what is hardness experienced through touch? It is a rupa, it does not know anything, it is different from nama. Rupa arises because of its own conditions, and nobody can make it arise and cease. It does not belong to us, it is beyond control. Han: When hardness is experienced through touch, I know that ruupa does not know anything, and only naama knows. I also know that ruupa arises because of its own conditions, and nobody can make it arise and cease; and that it does not belong to us, and it is beyond control. But what I was talking about was the ruupas of the rocks and mountains. Since the rocks and mountains do not have naama, which dhamma knows that ruupas of rocks and mountains arise and fall away all the time, and which dhamma directly realizes the truth that the ruupas of rocks and mountains are arising and falling away all the time? I had specifically said that [But when it comes to external inanimate things like rocks and mountains, it is difficult to appreciate that the *rupaas* of rocks and mountains are arising and falling away at all times.] Respectfully, Han #98171 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 10:35 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Ken. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" kenhowardau@ wrote: > > > An example of a concept that lasts forever would be an "eternal soul." > > (An example of a concept that lasts for just a short time would be a > > "soul that is annihilated at death.") > > Ken, you are speaking about these as if they actually exist. Hi Robert, This is always a wonderful topic for discussion. I have been taught at DSG that the first step in Dhamma study is to learn the difference between concepts and realities. And I have adopted that piece of wisdom as a kind of mantra. :-) No matter how much we have learnt our understanding of this topic can always go a little deeper. ------------------------ R: > A concept arises in the mind, it does not arise in the world. ------------------------ I would agree with that, but only if we define 'arises' in this case as 'occurs.' Only conditioned dhammas arise and fall by conditions. The dhammas that think arise and fall by conditions. But the thoughts themselves do not. Thoughts are not conditioned dhammas. Not many people know that. Even famous Buddhist authors have been known to mistake thoughts for dhammas. --------------------------------- R: > A "motorcar" is not a concept; one *has* a concept "motorcar." The actual motorcar that you drive is not a concept, it is a set of shifting realities; one mistakes these realities for a single thing, a "car." -------------------------------- This is where beginners like us can go off the rails. I often find myself theorising about a difference between the concept of (as in this case) a car and the actual, conceptual car - that the concept is of . . (?) That kind of thinking doesn't work; it gets us nowhere. As soon as we start to think of the car that the concept is of we are thinking about conventional reality. "Conventional reality" might be a confusing term at first. I think the suttas prefer "matters of the world" or "the concerns of worldlings" or something like that, but the meaning is the same. The Buddha did not teach about conventional reality: he taught about conditioned reality. When we mix the two realities up the Dhamma simply doesn't work. It becomes a kind of psychobabble. ----------------------------- R: > That does not mean that you can "control the concept" of car. You can turn the wheel and the car will turn, but it will not turn in exact conformity to how you turn the wheel, which is why cars crash quite frequently. They are not controllable and they cause suffering, even though we mistakenly conceptualize them. Objects which are made up of dhammas and which we falsely conceptualize still cause suffering and are still temporary and changeable and not truly subject to control. You confuse the fact that we *think* they are controllable with the actual experience that they are not. They are anatta, anicca and dukkha, even if we "think" they are not. ---------------------------- No, you have got me wrong. When I talk about cars I am talking about cars. When I talk about conditioned dhammas I am talking about conditioned dhammas. That doesn't mean that, in the former case, I have wrong view (about the ultimate existence of cars). It means that I am not talking about absolute existence at that time. Some cars with good steering and brakes are controllable, others are less controllable. I can say that without wrong view (belief in ultimate controllability) because I am talking about cars at the time, not about ultimate reality. Just cars! I recommend you do the same. Try to keep the two truths separate. Otherwise, you will find yourself inventing an in-between world in which there is some kind of "semi-existent, complex network of interconnecting , past present and future, namas and rupas . . . . " Don't go there! :-) --------------------- R: > Likewise the "concept of an eternal soul" is not eternal itself. The idea is that the soul is eternal, that's what the concept is "about." --------------------- This is what I was talking about. Don't bust your boiler trying to integrate the conditioned world with the conceptual world. Eternal souls belong in the conceptual worlds of religious people. They are, by definition, eternal. Don't worry about it. In the same way cars belongs in just about everyone's world. There are vintage cars that last a hundred years, and others last only a few years. They have controls, and so they are controllable. Don't be talking about uncontrollable cars that only last for a single moment. (Unless you are with people who understand you to be talking about conditioned dhammas.) No one likes psychobabble. (Unless it's their own.) ------------------------------------ R: > But the concept of the eternal soul arises and falls away in a moment, just like any other nama. ------------------------------------ Here is your chance to know something that even a lot of recognised Abhidhamma "experts" don't know. Concepts are not dhammas. They are neither nama nor rupa. You will find sutta translations in which the fourth foundation of mindfulness is given as "mindfulness of ideas." When some of those translators have been shown the relevant texts they have agreed to change their translations. But of course, the real problem lies in their inability to appreciate the basic, essential, starting point of Dhamma study - the difference between concepts and realities. ------------------------------------- R: > You are mistaking the false content of the concept with the actual existence of the concept as an object of mind. <. . .> Concepts don't have lives and histories, they are mental objects that arise for a moment. When you are not thinking of your motorcar, does it exist? -------------------------------------- I hope you will agree by now the answer, is yes. That's why we have parking fees. --------------------------- KH: > > > "In MA (ad MN 5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source > unknown): > Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate -- no third can be. > Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he > Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie." > (end quote) > > So what are your thoughts on that? R: > My thought is that one can indeed use conventional speech to refer to conventional objects - no problem there. But one who is discussing reality should not confuse concepts with realities or think that concepts actually exist. If you think he "two truths" means that in the "conventional world" conceptual objects "really exist," I think that is a mistaken notion. ------------------ Hooray, we agree entirely. There is a sutta that I would quote here if I was any good at quoting suttas. You've probably read it; it's the one in which someone with a name like Vachagottha the wanderer (?) asked the Buddha, "Is there a self or is there not a self? Does the Tathagatha exist after death or does he not?" The Buddha refused to answer. As he explained later to Ananda, if he had been talking to one of his monks (anyone who knew what he was talking about) he would have had no hesitation in saying there was no self. But Vachagottha couldn't see the difference between concepts and realities, and so there was no answer that could have helped him. ---------------- <. . .> KH: > > The teaching of absolute reality is > infinitely more satisfactory than any other theory - in which > characteristics of 'right' and 'wrong' exist only in the minds of > observers. R: > Well, absolute right and wrong don't seem to exist to me. I think that reality is beyond both conventional and unconventional truth. ----------------- Once you have got over this hurdle (the difference between concepts and realities) all will become clear. And you will never look back. Once you have seen the world that is comprised only of present-moment namas and rupas, you will never want a conventional religion again. I guarantee it! Ken H #98172 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 31, 2009 9:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/31/2009 3:26:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, We just discussed this sutta, a favorite of Lodewijk, the other day. I like to add something. Op 30-mei-2009, om 16:01 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > More generally, he said in An 2.19 "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. > It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not > possible to > abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is > unskillful.' ..... > Here > he doesn't say that akusala states *may be abandoned*, that it IS > possible > to abandon them. ------- N: Yes, it is possible. The sotaapanna has developed vipassanaa, right understanding, to the degree that coarse akusala can be eradicated. ---------------------------------------------- The process begins before stream entry, though - else stream entry would not occur. -------------------------------------------- You also quote the four right efforts, and these are accompanied by right view of the eightfold Path. ------------------------------------------- Certainly insight, to some degree, is a critical aspect of right effort. Not necessarily supermundane wisdom, however. ------------------------------------------- It is pa~n~naa that does the work of abondoning. That is the meaning of this sutta. -------------------------------------------- The meaning of the sutta is clear. As for what is involved in the abandoning, certainly insight is critical, as are also mindfulness, energy, attention, proper intent, a degree of calm, and much more no doubt, including the confidence that the abandoning is possible. ------------------------------------------ It may seem strange that one has to begin to understand seeing, visible object and all dhammas that appear as just dhamma, conditioned realities. ----------------------------------------- Actual understanding comes about by "meditation" in the sense of suppressing the hindrances and furthering the positive factors, but being intellectually introduced to the conditioned nature of phenomena does point the mind in the proper direction. ----------------------------------------- But this is the sure way leading on and on, although it takes a long time. ---------------------------------------- What does? Reading, listening, and thinking? If that were the whole of it, it would take forever. In fact, much of the thinking could well immerse us ever deeper in ignorance. Thinking, thinking, thinking, and, more thinking may lead to quite exotic and exciting mental dramas, spinning out a whole conceptual scheme that seems to be deep knowledge of Dhamma but is far from the direct knowing that liberates. -------------------------------------- The idea of self has to be eliminated little by little, otherwise one makes the failure of thinking that a self has to make an effort, even though one does not use the word self. One may have the intention not to be angry, but anger still arises. ---------------------------------------- It all begins with intention, Nina. As you have said, cultivation takes time. And as for intention, there is intention and there is intention. Transformative intention must be more than idle wishing and vain hope. --------------------------------------- This means that pa~n~naa is not strong enough to see the danger of anger. --------------------------------------- No, it means only that perfection hasn't been achieved. If anger never arose, one would already be well along the path! --------------------------------------- More listening, considering the Dhamma is necessary for the growth of pa~n~naa. ---------------------------------------- Not enough, Nina - not enough by a long shot. --------------------------------------- Nina. ========================== With metta, Howard Hindrances /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) #98173 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 1:57 pm Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Coming back to your example of shaving, you notice different moments. Can you notice that there are different realities with different characteristics? When you look into the mirror, touch the razor, when you are thinking , could you simply, without any need to “detect” nåma and rúpa, just realize that these different moments are different experiences which have different characteristics ? We should know that there are different realities. When you are looking into the mirror is there no seeing? It experiences just what appears through the eyesense, visible object. When you close your eyes the reality which appeared when you were looking does not appear anymore. Considering this is the first step to know what realities are. Later on one will learn more through direct experience. You write that you experience “touching the razor”. Which realities appear? Cold, motion or hardness? These are physical phenomena which can be experienced through touch. Or does a nåma appear which experiences one of these rúpas? Can you realize that they have different characteristics? This will help you to know the world in the ariyan sense. When you eat breakfast you touch the fork. We call it “fork”, but what can you directly experience through the bodysense? The rúpas which are cold, hardness or motion? You can learn that, no matter whether we touch a razor or a fork, rúpas such as cold, hardness or motion can be experienced through the bodysense. It is not you who experiences them, but only a type of nåma which experiences them. Through the eyesense the rúpa which is visible object or colour can be experienced. The world of tangible object is different from the world appearing through the eyesense. You might say, “But I experience the razor and the fork. I know when I touch the razor and when I touch the fork.” How do you know what is a razor and what is a fork? Because of remembrance or perception, saññå, a mental factor, cetasika, which arises with every moment of consciousness, citta. There isn’t any experience which is not accompanied by saññå. Because of saññå we remember things, we remember what different things are used for. We remember, “when we do this, it has that effect”. Saññå is another reality, it is a kind of nåma, not self. ****** Nina. #98174 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 2:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (13-14), and commentary. (part 1). nilovg Dear friends, sutta 13 Walshe DN 33.1.11(13) 'Four factors of Stream-Attainment (sotaapattiyangaani): association with good people (sappurisa- sa'mseva), hearing the true Dhamma, thorough attention (yoniso manasikaara), practice of the Dhamma in its entirety (dhammaanudhamma- pa.tipatti). (Cattaari sotaapattiya'ngaani - sappurisasa.msevo, saddhammassavana.m, yonisomanasikaaro, dhammaanudhammappa.tipatti. --------- N: The co. states that the four factors are the causes leading to the Path of the sotaapanna. Sota means stream, and the subco glosses: the ariyan stream. It states that these factors are means to reach this state. As to association with good people, sappurisa, the co. explains that after having met the Buddha and ‘good people’, he follows them. The subco. states as to sappurisa, this is santo purisa, a peaceful person, endowed with peaceful dhammas. As to hearing the true Dhamma, saddhamma, this is derived from santo, peaceful, or sato, true. The co. explains that he listens to the Dhamma of the tipi.taka which is a support. The subco: listening to the true Dhamma is conducive to the penetration of the four Truths. He practises as he is admonished, not falling down into the dukkha of an unhappy rebirth and the dukkha of the cycle. As to wise attention, the co explains that this is attention to impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. As to the practice of dhamma in conformity with dhamma, the co states that in conformity with dhamma relates to lokuttara dhamma, and that previous practice is necessary, which is, according to the subco, vipassanaa. This phrase is also explained in the co. to the Mahaaparinibbaanasutta (The Buddha’s Last Days, Yang-Gyu An, p. 93): A footnote: ---------- N: This sutta is very clear with regard to the essential conditions leading to the penetration of the four truths. Gradually the true nature of the realities that appear can be penetrated. As we read, there has to be wise attention to the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. However, first of all there have to be right awareness and direct understanding of the realities appearing through the six doors. Naama has to be known as naama and ruupa as ruupa. We read, consider and discuss Dhamma just in order to understand the reality of this moment. When a moment of understanding arises understanding is accumulated little by little. This is the way that pa~n~naa can grow to the degree of lokuttara pa~n~naa. We need confidence and courage so that we do not become disheartened about the long way we have to travel. ****** (to be continued) Nina. #98175 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 31, 2009 10:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - With minor exceptions to terminology, I very much like the following experiential description. I consider it very well done. :-) What you describe here is largely kayanupassana-in-action. This, I believe, can also lead to seeing into mental phenomena, most especially seeing into the constructive/synthetic mental activities that note interconnections among the rupas observed, enable the knowing of semi-stable aggregates of interrelated rupas, and the additional delusional identification of such aggregates as individual entities. So, for example, we observe a host of material phenomena (noted as in your shaving example), we observe how they are interrelated, functioning in concert, and, with mindful introspection of mental operations, we may also see how we erroneously identify this aggregate of rupas as a single entity of shaving. That last step is an important exercise of insight. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/31/2009 9:58:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, Coming back to your example of shaving, you notice different moments. Can you notice that there are different realities with different characteristics? When you look into the mirror, touch the razor, when you are thinking , could you simply, without any need to “detect†nÃ¥ma and rúpa, just realize that these different moments are different experiences which have different characteristics ? We should know that there are different realities. When you are looking into the mirror is there no seeing? It experiences just what appears through the eyesense, visible object. When you close your eyes the reality which appeared when you were looking does not appear anymore. Considering this is the first step to know what realities are. Later on one will learn more through direct experience. You write that you experience “touching the razorâ€. Which realities appear? Cold, motion or hardness? These are physical phenomena which can be experienced through touch. Or does a nÃ¥ma appear which experiences one of these rúpas? Can you realize that they have different characteristics? This will help you to know the world in the ariyan sense. When you eat breakfast you touch the fork. We call it “forkâ€, but what can you directly experience through the bodysense? The rúpas which are cold, hardness or motion? You can learn that, no matter whether we touch a razor or a fork, rúpas such as cold, hardness or motion can be experienced through the bodysense. It is not you who experiences them, but only a type of nÃ¥ma which experiences them. Through the eyesense the rúpa which is visible object or colour can be experienced. The world of tangible object is different from the world appearing through the eyesense. You might say, “But I experience the razor and the fork. I know when I touch the razor and when I touch the fork.†How do you know what is a razor and what is a fork? Because of remembrance or perception, saññå, a mental factor, cetasika, which arises with every moment of consciousness, citta. There isn’t any experience which is not accompanied by saññå. Because of saññå we remember things, we remember what different things are used for. We remember, “when we do this, it has that effectâ€. Saññå is another reality, it is a kind of nÃ¥ma, not self. ****** Nina #98176 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) nilovg Dear Han, Op 31-mei-2009, om 11:40 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > But what I was talking about was the ruupas of the rocks and > mountains. Since the rocks and mountains do not have naama, which > dhamma knows that ruupas of rocks and mountains arise and fall away > all the time, and which dhamma directly realizes the truth that the > ruupas of rocks and mountains are arising and falling away all the > time? ------ N: When what we call a rock is touched, hardness may appear and hardness may be realized by pa~n~naa as it is, just a rupa, not a rock. Hardness of a rock, hardness of a leg, these are just hardness, and in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist. You ask, which dhamma knows: pa~n~naa knows. Pa~n~naa knows just the dhamma that appears, in this case through touch. There is no need to think of inside or outside, no need to think of rock, or of 'arising and falling away all the time'. The present moment can be directly known and this leads to detachment from the idea of self or mine. I do not know whether I clarified your point. Nina. #98177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, I like your challenging remarks. Op 31-mei-2009, om 15:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > H:< Yes, it is possible. The sotaapanna has developed vipassanaa, > > The process begins before stream entry, though - else stream entry > would not occur. > -------------------------------------------- > N: Absolutely. All the stages of insight have to arise one after > the other. Deeper and deeper understanding of nama and rupa, and > this leads to more and more detachment from the self. --------- > H: accompanied by > > Certainly insight, to some degree, is a critical aspect of right > effort. Not necessarily supermundane wisdom, however. > ------------------------------------------- > N: Right effort is a factor of the supramundane Path. All four > right efforts are included. ----------- > > H: meaning > > The meaning of the sutta is clear. As for what is involved in the > abandoning, certainly insight is critical, as are also mindfulness, > energy, > attention, proper intent, a degree of calm, and much more no doubt, > including > the confidence that the abandoning is possible. > ------------------------------------------ > N: I agree that we need great confidence in the Path the Buddha > taught. Confidence in the development of right understanding of the > reality appearing now. Confidence that pa~n~naa grows in this way > from day to day, even we do not notice any progress. It is like the > knife handle one holds each day and which wears away so slowly. -------- > H: > Actual understanding comes about by "meditation" in the sense of > suppressing the hindrances and furthering the positive factors, but > being > intellectually introduced to the conditioned nature of phenomena > does point the > mind in the proper direction. > ----------------------------------------- > N: Rather than suppressing the hindrancces they should be known > when they appear as not self. There is a danger of a self who does the suppressing, who meditates and furthers positive factors. --------- > > H: > What does? Reading, listening, and thinking? If that were the whole of > it, it would take forever. In fact, much of the thinking could well > immerse us ever deeper in ignorance. Thinking, thinking, thinking, > and, more > thinking may lead to quite exotic and exciting mental dramas, > spinning out a > whole conceptual scheme that seems to be deep knowledge of Dhamma > but is far > from the direct knowing that liberates. > -------------------------------------- > N: The Path is not thinking. Thinking is real and when it occurs it > can be known as a conditioned naama, not self. We do not try not to > think but it can be known as it is. --------- > H: does not > > It all begins with intention, Nina. As you have said, cultivation > takes time. And as for intention, there is intention and there is > intention. > Transformative intention must be more than idle wishing and vain hope. > --------------------------------------- > N: It all begins with understanding. The first factor of the > Dependent Origination is ignorance. How to be liberated from the > cycle? By Understanding, wisdom. Intention, cetanaa, accompanies > each citta, but it is not a factor of the eightfold Path. -------- > > H: > No, it means only that perfection hasn't been achieved. If anger never > arose, one would already be well along the path! > --------------------------------------- > N: Anger is eradicated at the stage of the anaagaami, by pa~n~naa. > Pa~n~naa that has grown to reach that stage eradicates anger. --------- > > H: > Not enough, Nina - not enough by a long shot. > ----------- N: By listening to true dhamma people may come to understand that it is counteractive to wish, to hope, to try, to intend with an idea of self. It is really hard to let go of the idea of self who acts. It is by understanding stemming from listening that one finds out: now I am deluded by clinging to a self. There may be a moment of right awareness, and immediately clinging to self after that. If this is realized a great deal has been achieved already. Nina. #98178 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 31, 2009 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) nilovg Dear Sarah, a charming account which I like. I would also find it difficult to drink in one strike. Even though it may not be intoxicating. It all depends on the moment what is decided by citta. Nina. Op 31-mei-2009, om 8:11 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > And as for the stupefying effects, I've been having plenty of cups > of chamomile tea, a scalp massage last evening, lazing around in a > hammock at the weekend listening to the waves, restorative yoga and > wanders under the stars.... #98179 From: han tun Date: Sun May 31, 2009 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Re: Physical Phenomena (11) dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Dear Nina, We are talking two different things. I am talking about the rocks and mountains as external earth element. What I want to know is: as external earth element, do the rocks and mountains arise and fall away all the time, like the internal earth element? If yes, it is difficult for me to appreciate. If no, my question is null and void. But you have already said that in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist, and that there is no need to think of inside or outside, no need to think of rock, or of 'arising and falling away all the time'. I will take you advice, and I think I can accordingly close the discussion. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #98180 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 31, 2009 7:39 pm Subject: Calm and Happy! bhikkhu.sama... Friends The 8 Pleasures of the Reclusive Sage: The absence of possessions & possessiveness... Blameless daily begging of alms food... Content, calm & composed with modest needs... Detached ease regarding all phenomena... Fearlessness of robbery, death, violence & loss... Freedom from government, laws, and taxation... Freedom from bosses, and administrators... Unobstructed in all directions & realms... Have a nice reclusive day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Reclusive Bliss = Calm & Happy = Samana-Sukha! :-) #98181 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 31, 2009 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/31/2009 11:06:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > N: Rather than suppressing the hindrancces they should be known > when they appear as not self. There is a danger of a self who does the suppressing, who meditates and furthers positive factors. ============================ The hindrances are suppressed as jhanas are entered, and the hindrances are weakened by repeated entry to jhanas. The hindrances and, more generally the defilements, are uprooted by wisdom. With metta, Howard Hindrances /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) #98182 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Sun May 31, 2009 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K.Sujin in Sri Lanka 77 (2) - Awareness sarahprocter... Dear Friends, More from the seminars in Colombo, April 1977. ======= S: A lot of people here feel they want to do something and they find it helpful to go to the temple, to meditate, to go to a quiet place. For different people, different conditions are helpful. Some people like to be quiet, they like to sit cross-legged and perhaps for them that's when there's most awareness. Do you not agree? Sujin: There are many levels of kusala and the purpose of going to the temple is to become more peaceful, is that right? S: I think different people go with different intentions. Some people go because they want to be more peaceful. Other people go because they feel that's where they can develop most awareness. Sujin: What is one's nature? The person who comes here - it's their nature to come here and that is his or her reality, coming here. It's natural, it's conditioned. Why don't we understand the conditions which condition every moment? One cannot stop hearing, seeing, thinking, [cittas] being kusala and akusala, but one can understand them as they are - only different realities which are conditioned. S: So if someone goes to the temple, they go because there are conditions to go to the temple, but it doesn't mean there cannot just as easily be moments of awareness at all other times too because there are always realities appearing. Sujin: If it's their real life then it's alright. Anyone who always sits cross-legged, sati or awareness can arise at that moment. In the others who do not have the accumulation of sitting cross-legged, their awareness could arise in other positions. S: People shouldn't think that unless they go to the temple, as they've been instructed to do, that there can't be any awareness because there can be awareness at any time. Sujin: I think it's time to talk about right awareness now. S: Perhaps you could talk about awareness in general terms and sati of the eightfold path. Sujin: I don't know whether you're used to the term sati in this country [Sri Lanka], but in Thailand, people misunderstand the meaning of sati because they think that whatever you do correctly, that is sati. But the reality of sati is wholesomeness. It's a kind of wholesome cetasika. It always arises only kusala citta. It cannot arise with akusala citta. When one is having lobha-muula-citta, attachment, very attached to the work or the job, it's not sati. But when one thinks of giving or observing sila or being tranquil, not giving into lobha and dosa - at that moment it's the sati which arises and performs the function of awareness. In a day, most people, or everyone, thinks only of getting, taking and there are only a few moments of giving away or helping the others. At moment of giving things away for the others' benefit, that is not any self who is doing so, but it is only sati which arises. It is aware of giving rather than taking or getting. So sati is a wholesome cetasika which arises and performs its function of being aware of wholesome things. And if we use the term sammaa sati or right awareness, not specifically, then it can be awareness which arises with daana, siila or bhaavanaa. But if we use the term samma sati of the eightfold path, it has to be the sati which accompanies right awareness [satipa.t.thaana] only. And right understanding understands the characteristic of not-self. Dh: So we may give and think it is I who is giving, we may have no awareness of the realities, but if it is the eightfold path then there must be some awareness of some characteristic.... Sujin: ....which appears at that moment. ***** Metta, Sarah =========== #98183 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 31, 2009 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) sarahprocter... Dear Han, I hope you don't mind my adding a comment here and pls feel free to ignore it! --- On Sun, 31/5/09, han tun wrote: >We are talking two different things. I am talking about the rocks and mountains as external earth element. What I want to know is: as external earth element, do the rocks and mountains arise and fall away all the time, like the internal earth element? If yes, it is difficult for me to appreciate. If no, my question is null and void. .... S: You're raising important points. As Azita said, it's helpful for everyone when you reflect out loud on the extracts. As external earth element, the rupas or elements (dhatus)arise and fall away all the time, just like the internal earth element rupas do. I agree that it's hard for us to appreciate because we're so used to thinking in terms of "wholes", of rocks, mountains, chariots and computers. However, it's just the same with the internal rupas - we're so used to thinking in terms of bodies, hearts, brains and so on as existing, because there's so little understanding and awareness of hardness or other rupas which appear through the body-sense. Rocks, mountains, bodies and hearts are concepts that are thought about, not realities which can be directly known, leading to the deeper understanding of the impermanence of such rupas. ... >But you have already said that in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist, and that there is no need to think of inside or outside, no need to think of rock, or of 'arising and falling away all the time'. .... S: We're bound to think of rocks and even of the changes in them over time. There is nothing wrong with this and indeed the Buddha would also refer to such (correct) conventional ideas. However, the point of the Teachings is to help us get closer and closer to understanding the paramattha dhammas in order to liberate us from the very deeply-rooted ideas of "wholes" and atta. At a moment of experiencing hardness, there's no idea of 'rock' or 'inside' or 'outside'. It is just the characteristic of pathavi dhatu, hardness, which appears. Thanks again for your helpful comments and no need to respond further if you'd prefer not:). Metta, Sarah p.s I used to have the same problem as you with the apostrophes until Jon helped me change a setting in 'tools' or somewhere - to change the curly apostrophes to " (straight ones) in my settings. Perhaps Ken (or Jon when he has time) could try to help you do this. ================= #98184 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 1:47 am Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (11) hantun1 Dear Sarah (Nina), >> Han: We are talking two different things. I am talking about the rocks and mountains as external earth element. What I want to know is: as external earth element, do the rocks and mountains arise and fall away all the time, like the internal earth element? If yes, it is difficult for me to appreciate. If no, my question is null and void. ----- > Sarah: You're raising important points. As Azita said, it's helpful for everyone when you reflect out loud on the extracts. As external earth element, the rupas or elements (dhatus) arise and fall away all the time, just like the internal earth element rupas do. I agree that it's hard for us to appreciate because we're so used to thinking in terms of "wholes", of rocks, mountains, chariots and computers. However, it's just the same with the internal rupas - we're so used to thinking in terms of bodies, hearts, brains and so on as existing, because there's so little understanding and awareness of hardness or other rupas which appear through the body-sense. Rocks, mountains, bodies and hearts are concepts that are thought about, not realities which can be directly known, leading to the deeper understanding of the impermanence of such rupas. ----- Han: In MN 28 Mahaahatthipadopama Sutta, Ven Sariputta said [Now both the internal earth element and the external element are simply earth element. (Yaa ceva kho pana ajjhattikaa pathaviidhaatu, yaa ca baahiraa pathaviidhaatu, pathaviidhaaturevesaa.)] So, you have rightly said that [As external earth element, the rupas or elements (dhatus) arise and fall away all the time, just like the internal earth element rupas do.] You see, that is the point! I dare not and cannot say anything against Ven Sariputta. That was why I was only *thinking aloud* (expressing my helplessness) that it is difficult for me to appreciate that the rocks and mountains are arising and falling away all the time, in the same way both the internal and external earth elements do. To say that in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist, does not help the issue. In that case, why did the Buddha asked us to contemplate on the foulness of the body parts, if these body parts do not exist in ultimate sense? What would be the use to contemplate on something which does not exist? [… in the same way, the monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body. MN 119 Kayagata-sati Sutta Mindfulness Immersed in the Body http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html In the same way, to say that there is no need to think of inside or outside, does not help the issue either. If there is no need to think of outside dhammas, why would the Buddha say: [In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself.] in DN 22 Maha-satipatthana Sutta? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ------------------------------ > > Han: But you have already said that in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist, and that there is no need to think of inside or outside, no need to think of rock, or of 'arising and falling away all the time'. ----- > Sarah: We're bound to think of rocks and even of the changes in them over time. There is nothing wrong with this and indeed the Buddha would also refer to such (correct) conventional ideas. However, the point of the Teachings is to help us get closer and closer to understanding the paramattha dhammas in order to liberate us from the very deeply-rooted ideas of "wholes" and atta. At a moment of experiencing hardness, there's no idea of 'rock' or 'inside' or 'outside'. It is just the characteristic of pathavi dhatu, hardness, which appears. ----- Han: I know very well that our aim should be to discard the wrong views of atta, and look for the realities. But while I am still a puthujjana I cannot help looking at the concepts such as rocks and mountains, and seek better understanding of those concepts. Without a good understanding of the concepts I personally feel that I cannot understand the realities. I thanks *you* very much for your kind intervention, but I do not wish to continue this discussion any more. Respectfully, Han Ps. Thank you for your tips on apostrophes and quotation marks. The problem does not occur when I type on direct e-mail. It is only when I sent my message to Yahoogroups web-site. Anyway, I will appreciate the help by John or Ken. #98185 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, (no need to further respond as I always say to Phil! A great topic...) --- On Mon, 1/6/09, han tun wrote: >Han: In MN 28 Mahaahatthipadopama Sutta, Ven Sariputta said [Now both the internal earth element and the external element are simply earth element. (Yaa ceva kho pana ajjhattikaa pathaviidhaatu, yaa ca baahiraa pathaviidhaatu, pathaviidhaatureves aa.)] So, you have rightly said that [As external earth element, the rupas or elements (dhatus) arise and fall away all the time, just like the internal earth element rupas do.] You see, that is the point! I dare not and cannot say anything against Ven Sariputta. That was why I was only *thinking aloud* (expressing my helplessness) that it is difficult for me to appreciate that the rocks and mountains are arising and falling away all the time, in the same way both the internal and external earth elements do. ... S: The *thinking aloud* helps everyone. Your *helplessness* is that of all worldlings who have not yet realised the Truths. Strictly speaking, rocks and mountains are not arising and falling away all the time - they are pa~n~natti. Only the elements do. ... >To say that in the ultimate sense rock or leg does not exist, does not help the issue. In that case, why did the Buddha asked us to contemplate on the foulness of the body parts, if these body parts do not exist in ultimate sense? What would be the use to contemplate on something which does not exist? ... S: By 'body', I understand the Buddha to be referring to the rupas taken to be the body. There are only 5 khandhas, no 'body khandha'. .... >In the same way, to say that there is no need to think of inside or outside, does not help the issue either. If there is no need to think of outside dhammas, why would the Buddha say: [In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself.] in DN 22 Maha-satipatthana Sutta? http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ dn/dn.22. 0.than.html ------------ --------- --------- S: We can refer to the internal rupas of the body or the external rupas of the rock, but as you quoted: "[Now both the internal earth element and the external element are simply earth element. (Yaa ceva kho pana ajjhattikaa pathaviidhaatu, yaa ca baahiraa pathaviidhaatu, pathaviidhaatureves aa.)]" At the moment of awareness, only pathaviidhaatu (hardness/softeness) is experienced. This is also what we read about in the Mulapariyaa Sutta - understanding earth element as just earth element, not a *something*. "Internal" distinguishes the rupas of the body from those outside - it's a helpful designation. Rupa khandha includes all rupas, internal or external, as you know. .... >Han: I know very well that our aim should be to discard the wrong views of atta, and look for the realities. ... S: I wouldn't quite put it like this. I think the aim is to understand the present dhammas. If there is wrong view, atta view now, it too can be understood. In this way it is a support or footing for right understanding to arise. So whether the reality now is wrong view or jhana citta, both are equally suitable as objects of satipatthana. Understanding in this way, we have more detachment and less feeling of helplessness about what has been conditioned to arise already. ... >But while I am still a puthujjana I cannot help looking at the concepts such as rocks and mountains, and seek better understanding of those concepts. Without a good understanding of the concepts I personally feel that I cannot understand the realities. .... S: For me, I feel it's the other way round. I think that by understanding the realities beter (even if only theoretically in the beginning), we appreciate the concepts for what they are. A rock will never be anything other than a concept, however long we think about it. No need to agree or pursue the point! .... Metta, Sarah >Ps. Thank you for your tips on apostrophes and quotation marks. The problem does not occur when I type on direct e-mail. It is only when I sent my message to Yahoogroups web-site. Anyway, I will appreciate the help by John or Ken. .... S: I know - I had exactly the same problem before. Ken is going to send you his solution and Jon will send his later (he's very busy this week). ============= #98186 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:33 am Subject: Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, A quick reply to #97778 which lay buried til now! The following was interesting and relevant to the previous discussions on why nibbana is classified as nama: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > Atth 1316. Nama and rupa couplet > It is nama in the sense of name-making, in the sense of bending, and in the sense of attracting. > Of these five khandhas, only four are nama in the sense of name-making. > ... > (But here) it's nama in the sense of bending the four [nama] khandhas. Because they bend towards their object [all dhammas, inc. pannatti]. > It's nama also in the sense of the attraction they all [khandhas] have. Because the four [nama] khandhas attract their object and viceversa. > Nibbana attracts faultless [nama] dhammas on to itself by object predominance condition [arammana-adhipati paccaya which, apart from nibbana, also includes other dhammas accompanied by plesaurable feeling, but not pannatti]. > ... > > Atth 1316. Naamaruupaduke naakara.na.t.thena ca namana.t.thena ca naamana.t.thena ca naama.m. > Tattha cattaaro khandhaa taava naamakara.na.t.thena 'naama.m. > ... > 'Namana.t.thenaapi cettha cattaaro khandhaa naama.m. Te hi aaramma.naabhimukhaa namanti. 'Naamana.t.thena sabbampi naama.m. Cattaaro hi khandhaa arammane aññamañña.m naamenti. Nibbaana.m aaramma.naadhipatipaccayataaya attani anavajjadhamme nāmeti. > .... S: So here at the end, we have the meaning of nama in the sense of attracting dhammas to itself by way of arammana-adhipati paccaya (object predominance condition). Under this condition, a particularly desirable dhamma conditions cittas and cetasikas to experience it. I'm not quite sure what you mean aboe when you refer to "apart from nibbana, also includes other dhammas accompanied by plesaurable feeling". Nibbana and other desirable objects cannot be said to be "accompanied by pleasurable feeling" surely? Also, although the cittas experiencing such objects will nearly always be with pleasant feeling, this isn't always so. For example, nibbana is usually experienced with pleasant feeling, but not always (such as when the highest jhanas are the basis). Please keep sharing these helpful quotes and your comments! Metta, Sarah ======== #98187 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:44 am Subject: Skillful thieves (was: [dsg] Re: effort.] [1] glenjohnann Hi Sarah Thanks for the explanation below. Makes some sense, particularly when thought of in terms of the growth of understanding of the Dhamma - pariyatti understanding at the intellectual level as a condition for further growth of understanding. What struck me in your first e-mail about this was the thought of a concept as a condition. And while I understand how greed accumulates and acts as condition for more of the same, and the same with wholesome cetasikas, it still seems hard to grasp that the concept rather than the reality (albeit of which there is not any direct understanding)is the condition. The element of greed, or generosity can arises many, many times before there is any direct understanding of it. And it accumulates. The fact that there is no direct understanding of them has nothing to do with the accumulation or them being condition for further arising of same. So, is it the arising of the greed or generosity or the concept of them that are condition for further their future arising? Perhaps both, if one thinks about either greed or generosity subsequent to their arising. Those are my thoughts for the moment. This is an interesting area - one that I had not thought of in this way before. Looking forward to more discussion about it. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarahprocterabbott@... wrote: > > > Hi Ann & all, > > >>S: So here are examples of past dhammas and concepts conditioning present thinking and remembrance by natural decisive support condition. > > ... > > A:> Can you please say more about concepts conditioning present thinking and remembrance by natural decisive support. What caught my attention was "concepts" - as a condition for anything. > .... > S: Yes, concepts are included in natural decisive support condition (as well as in object condition) as a condition for cittas and cetasikas to arise later. On this condition (pakatuupanissaya paccaya), this summary is given: > > From ‘Summary & Exposition’ (PTS comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha), ch 8 > > “A natural decisive-support is a decisive support causal condition by its > very nature (pakati), by its own intrinsic nature irrespective of any > other kind of causal condition. it is said to be an individual decisive > support, apart, that is, from object and contiguity. Or else, a natural > decisive-support causal condition is a decisive-support causal condition > that is ‘ready’ (pakata), where the ‘pa’ in pakata is a prefix. It shows > that it is something, with its capacity to give rise to its own effect, > that has been produced and practised in a [mental and physical] > continuity. Therefore natural decisive-support causal conditions consist > of greed, etc, or faith, etc, that have been produced in one’s own mental > continuity, or seasonal change and food, etc, that have been repeatedly > experienced.â€� > > S: Natural decisive support condition is the broadest of conditions and can be said to include all other conditions, I believe. Any concept thought about can act as a condition for kusala or akusala cittas to arise, along with any cittas, cetasikas or rupas. > > Although, 'seasonal change' or 'food' can be said to be short-hand for various realities, still concepts themselves are always listed under the conditioning factors for pakatuupanissaya paccaya. > > Hence,to give a graphic example, thoughts of killing or pornography or stealing and the concepts involved can be a condition for future unwholesome thoughts. > > On the other hand, the intellectual study and understanding of (concepts of) Dhamma, i.e. pariyatti, can be a condition for further right understanding to develop. Not only the cittas involved, but also the objects, such as (the concept of) visible object or sound, for example, can be a condition in this way for right understanding. > > I'm very interested in this topic too, so please let me know how this sounds. It's a topic I raised many times in Bangkok. > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s.Apologies for delays - we were away for the weekend at the nearby resort in Fiji and I was without computer and internet. It's rather like travelling in India - most the time one has no idea what's going on in the rest of the world. The local newspaper (if one can get hold of a copy) has rugby on its front page and most other pages! > ========== > #98188 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:58 am Subject: Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, Your last question in your helpful message#97695, just caught my eye: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > Maybe anyone else can say something about indriyasamvarasiila? ... S: There is a wealth of detail in 'Useful Posts' in the files under 'Guarding'. I just opened the last message which is this great extract from "Survey" which Nina quoted fairly recently: *** "As a person develops pa~n~naa, he acquires more understanding of the excellent qualities of the Buddha and of the Dhamma he taught in all details. One can appreciate the teachings from the beginning level, the level of restraint, or "guarding", of the senses (samvara siila) with regard to the Paa.timokkha, the Disciplinary code for the monks. This is the conduct through body and speech befitting the "samana", the person who is a monk, who leads a peaceful life. We read in the "Visuddhimagga" (I, 50) about the restraint of the monk with regard to seeing: What is proper resort as guarding? Here "A bhikkhu, having entered inside a house, having gone into a street, goes with downcast eyes, seeing the length of a plough yoke, restrained, not looking at an elephant, not looking at a horse, a carriage, a pedestrian, a woman, a man, not looking up, not looking down, not staring this way and that." This is called proper resort as guarding. This was said to remind us not to continue the "story" after the seeing and dwell on it for a long time, thinking in various ways of this or that person or matter. When we have seen, we should know that it is only seeing. No matter whether one looks no further than the length of a plough yoke ahead or not, there is seeing and then it is gone. In that way one will not be absorbed in the outward appearance and details. Pa~n~naa can clearly understand that it is just because of thinking that we are used to seeing the outward world which is full of people. If we do not think, there is only seeing and then it is gone. Can there be many people at that moment? However, one is used to thinking for a long time, and thus one is bound to think time and again of many different subjects." *** S: If you have time, look at the other messages saved under 'Guarding' and share any other helpful extracts too. Metta, Sarah ======= #98189 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 4:18 am Subject: Re: Skillful thieves (was: [dsg] Re: effort.] [1] sarahprocter... Hi Ann, It's great to have your reflections on this topic too - like old days, chatting about the Dhamma together.... --- On Mon, 1/6/09, glenjohnann wrote: >Thanks for the explanation below. Makes some sense, particularly when thought of in terms of the growth of understanding of the Dhamma - pariyatti understanding at the intellectual level as a condition for further growth of understanding. ... S: Yes, so far no problem... ... >What struck me in your first e-mail about this was the thought of a concept as a condition. And while I understand how greed accumulates and acts as condition for more of the same, and the same with wholesome cetasikas, it still seems hard to grasp that the concept rather than the reality (albeit of which there is not any direct understanding) is the condition. .... S: Actually anything - reality or concept, but just under these two conditions only, i.e. object condition and natural decisive support condition. So while we can only refer to cittas and cetasikas as accumulating or of being conditioned, namas, rupas and concepts play a role in conditioning such accumulation. .... >The element of greed, or generosity can arises many, many times before there is any direct understanding of it. And it accumulates. The fact that there is no direct understanding of them has nothing to do with the accumulation or them being condition for further arising of same. .... S: Yes... .... >So, is it the arising of the greed or generosity or the concept of them that are condition for further their future arising? Perhaps both, if one thinks about either greed or generosity subsequent to their arising. .... S: The tendency to greed, the greed itself is a condition for future arising. So is the object experienced. For example, the greed for a mango, and 'the mango' idea itself, are conditions for future such greed, I believe. In a similar way, the reflecting on visible object, and the concept 'visible object' itself, are conditions for future wise attention and understanding to develop. This is surely why the Buddha taught us the concepts about realities, so that such concepts themselves would provide (in the case of wise attention) the conditions for right understanding to develop. .... >Those are my thoughts for the moment. This is an interesting area - one that I had not thought of in this way before. Looking forward to more discussion about it. ... S: Likewise. You always help me to really question my understanding of what I've been hearing and reflecting on as well. How does this sound to you now? Metta, Sarah ========= #98190 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:41 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > And as for the stupefying effects, I've been having plenty of cups of chamomile tea, a scalp massage last evening, lazing around in a hammock at the weekend listening to the waves, restorative yoga and wanders under the stars.... > > It all comes down to the citta and as you say "the word says 'not self,'":-). Well I very much enjoyed your story which seems to have a few lessons all bundled up into one; also especially liked your list of 'everyday intoxicants,' including the scalp massage and the restorative yoga -- I could use a bit of that, or at least the concept of body-identity would enjoy it. :-) I am sure we will eventually find a way to accomodate the meaning of 'not self' with the inherent characteristic of anatta - surely they cannot be in opposition to each other... At the very least, they both mean that there is not a self to worry about, so we can at least celebrate that...perhaps with a good deep tissue massage.... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #98191 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:46 am Subject: [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > ... Monks, gain comes to the unlearned common average folk, who > reflect not thus: "This gain which has come is impermanent, painful > and subject to change." They know it not as it really is. Loss > comes ... fame... obscurity... blame... praise... contentment... > pain.... They reflect not that such are impermanent, painful and > subject to change, nor do they know these conditions as they really > are. Gain, loss and so forth take possession of their minds and hold > sway there. They welcome the gain which has arisen; they rebel > against loss. They welcome the fame which has arisen; they rebel > against obscurity. They welcome the praise which has arisen; they > rebel against blame. They welcome the contentment which has arisen; > they rebel against pain. Thus given over to compliance and hostility, > they are not freed from birth, old age, death, sorrows, lamentations, > pains, miseries and tribulations. I say such people are not free from > ill.< Thanks for this passage, and for the other one about blame. It seems to be true that after being attached to praise and 'rebelling against blame' and loss, we blame others for our discontent. It's quite a vicious cycle isn't it? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #98192 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:51 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (98155) > > ================= > > > As I see it, it's not a question of what "anatta" (in the abstract) means, but of what is meant by anatta in the context of the characteristic of anatta. > > > > What do you consider to be the characteristic of anatta? Can you give a basic definition - I don't mean your own, but from any source that you would take as authoritative. > > ================= > > From the Samohavinodani passage previously quoted, I understand anatta as one of the 3 characteristics to mean "insusceptibility to control". > > > ================= > > I take it to mean "lack or absence of a self or of belonging to a self." Do you agree that this lack of self or selfhood is the characteristic of anatta? > > ================= > > I think all 3 characteristics are difficult to understand. I can agree that "lack of self" is the literal meaning of anatta, just as "suffering" is the literal meaning of "dukkha", but I would not like to adopt these terms as "definitions" of the characteristics themselves. Well, I think that I would very much agree that 'insusceptibility to control' is either the or a major characteristic of anatta, so I think there is no doubt there. To my reading, 'lack of control' and 'impermanence' go hand in hand and are mutually dependent, so it seems like the changing impermanent nature of dhammas would make them uncontrollable, and this impermanance and uncontrollability would make it impossible to cling to the dhamma as a 'part of self.' In any case, as you have implied, it is one thing to talk about these things and something else to experience them. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #98193 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:59 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > On the issue of "practice", what I've said is that the development of insight is not a matter to doing specified things as a form of practice. It's a matter of having a better understanding of the way things are, gained from reflecting on how what one has heard and understood relates to the present moment. This sounds to me like you are saying that pariyatti is the entire method to the path. That it develops to paripatti and beyond through consideration and reflection as the only means? I wonder if this is what you mean. ... > I do not understand the teachings to be telling (instructing) us to do this or that. They are instructive/informative, but not in the sense of laying out a technique to be followed. I wonder in this sense what it means to have a path or 'follow a path,' if there is no sense of 'laying out a technique to be followed.' Does the Buddha lay out a path to be followed? And if so, how is that path followed and accomplished if not by some form of 'practice or technique?' Does not the path require particular qualities to be developed and skillful means to be engaged? If not, what is the purpose of the Dhamma? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #98194 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:08 am Subject: Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Once you have got over this hurdle (the difference between concepts and > realities) all will become clear. > > And you will never look back. Once you have seen the world that is > comprised only of present-moment namas and rupas, you will never want a > conventional religion again. I guarantee it! I appreciate your encouragement, but may not agree on the correct way of reconciling this bifurcation between the "two worlds." I don't believe that a dualistic 'side-by-side' view of reality can be ultimately satisfying. Of course I have no problem talking about cars or driving one, and I don't try to break the steering wheel down into 'hardness' and other rupas, because I don't want to crash. But I also do not accept that conventional reality is to be accepted as it is and not looked into. I also have a problem with the idea that thoughts/concepts are neither nama nor rupa. That will require a more specific explanation. It seems to fly in the face of the five kandhas to say that there is a whole category by which we run our lives -- in fact the world of delusion is based on them -- that are not subject the laws of samsara. Since the mind follows these laws in every area, how can concepts be separate and apart? I would like a better explanation of what they are considered to be. It seems to me that they are subject to all the same laws as any other thought-form and should be considered a nama. A thought only arises for a citta, so what is the thought then? It cannot be an unconditioned reality or a non-reality that just floats along in its own category. Buddha's categorizations coverered the All. Concepts must be part of the All, so what are they? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98195 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com , sarah abbott wrote: > > > Dear Han & all, > . . . . > >Ps. Thank you for your tips on apostrophes and quotation marks. The problem does not occur when I type on direct e-mail. It is only when I sent my message to Yahoogroups web-site. Anyway, I will appreciate the help by John or Ken. > .... > S: I know - I had exactly the same problem before. Ken is going to send you his solution and Jon will send his later (he's very busy this week). ---------------- Hi Han, I once dabbled in computer programming as a hobby, and so Sarah has great confidence in my abilities. But her confidence is misplaced, unfortunately, and I probably know less about computers than the average user. Yahoo makes changes behind the scenes, and, like you, I recently had trouble posting messages. The format shown in the "Preview" page was different from the format in which the messages were finally displayed on the List. Have you noticed a link on the Edit page (or the Post Message page) that reads: "New! Compose your message with Rich Text Editor (beta)?" I click on that link before pasting or typing my message. That has solved all the formatting problems I was having. If you haven't already experimented with that link it might be worth giving it a try. But that's about the extent of my knowledge, I'm afraid. :-) Ken H #98196 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:18 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (98041) > > ================= > > > (With apologies to you and others for the delay in responding.) > > > > There is no problem with that; it gave me a chance to rest and shore up my strength! :-) > > ================= > > That may explain the robustness of your reply ;-)) :-) I would not want to give you less than my best effort! :-) > > ================= > > > In the passage from the Samohavinidani quoted by Scott in a related thread, the meaning was given as this: > > > "The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self. ... > > > > And how is that discerned? > > ================= > > The question was whether or not the characteristic of not-self had ever been described in terms of a positive characteristic. I think that "insusceptibility to control" is a positive characteristic. > > As for *how* it's discerned, it's discerned by panna that has been accumulated gradually over time (but on a moment-to-moment basis). What my question is driving at, is whether 'insusceptibility to control' is seen in its functional reality, to which I think you have suggested an answer. I would interpret this as saying that over a series of moments, panna accumulates the knowledge that the dhamma is not subject to control. This makes sense to me. And I can see that as an observable characteristic of a dhamma. > > ================= > Normally Buddha seems to ask that one contemplate this inabilty to have power exercised over it, as well as its temporary and unsatisfying nature. As I see it, this characteristic is discerned by a citta in relation to a dhamma. How does a dhamma *contain* insusceptibility to control? > > ================= > > I do not understand it to be said that a dhamma "contains" insusceptibility to control. A characteristic is a manifest attribute. (I am tempted to ask whether, in suggesting that a characteristic is something contained in a dhamma, you are not reifying the characteristic ;-)) Exactly! I am questioning it in that way to make sure that *you* are not reifying it. I am trying to protect you! :-) > > ================= > It is only in relation to a nama that would wish to control it that this insusceptibility appears. So one must either fail to control it or contemplate this inability to control. In either case, the dhamma all by itself doesn't have this; it just is itself arising and falling. Lack of control is on the part of a controlling intention, is it not? How else does it appear? > > ================= > > Well I suppose every characteristic could be stated in terms of something to be contemplated. But that would be to miss the point that what is being referred to here is a characteristic that is apparent to developed panna only, and thus not to reasoned consideration. That's fine, as long as it looks like a characteristic on paper I am satisfied. I am not hoping to experience it directly at the present time. > > > ================= > > It is the failure to account for the actual meaning of what is said that frustrates me. When confronting the actual meaning of a definition 'around here' I often get a bunch of general feedback that "it must be a positive characteristic of a dhamma all by itself' because someone else said so. > > ================= > > I think you misunderstand. I am only saying that this is how it is said to be (not that it *must* be like this). Okay. > > > ================= > > The belief in a soul, self or Divine Being are not beliefs of that time; they are beliefs of every time in human existence. All the Buddhas would be combatting the same tendencies of human beings to believe in eternalism or egoity. > > ================= > > I agree with what you say here, but not with your earlier comment that "It was atta and Atman that came first and anatta came second." Well, I guess you could say that the "foundation of that which we call anatta" was already there in the structural reality of the dhamma, since it of course did not change when the concept of atta came along. All I am saying is that we think of "in the seen there is only the seen" as "anatta" with reference to our tendency to ascribe everything to the act of a 'self.' If we did not have this tendency, I think we would see that characteristic of the dhamma as "just what it is" rather than 'non-self.' Without a self, there is no reason to see "isness" as "non-self." It would just be tathata, things being "exactly as they are due to conditions," which I think is the same as anatta and uncontrollability. If there was no one around to control anything, why would uncontrollability be ascribed to "things arising the way they do due to conditions." It would just be the way it is. Isn't that what the arahat sees? "Just this" and nothing more? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #98197 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Physical Phenomena (11) epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Yahoo makes changes behind the scenes, and, like you, I recently had > trouble posting messages. The format shown in the "Preview" page was > different from the format in which the messages were finally displayed > on the List. I'm glad you have acknowledged this, as I have also been noticing little formatting changes in yahoo which, as usual, have led to new problems. Why do they bother to make these annoying changes? It is like samsara all over again! ;-( In my personal yahoo inbox, I have noticed the following: a/ My inbox doesn't load quickly anymore. I have to often go back to the higher "Yahoo Mail link" and go back to inbox to get it to update. b/ If I hit the "back arrow" to go back to a message to resend it, it now disappears completely and the backup 'drafts' they create are never even close to the state of the finished message. For a while, my mail search wouldn't work, but this seems to be fixed now. Other problems too, that I won't bother you about. But suffice it to say if the yahoo mail is astray, the yahoo groups will be too. Usually these things get worked out over time, so it will probably fix itself eventually. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #98198 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 6:45 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 1, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, In the “absolute sense”, or, in the “ariyan discipline”, there is no fork, no razor, no mirror; these are only ideas we can think of, but they are not realities. When there is seeing, it is visible object which is experienced; when there is touching, it is hardness, coldness or another rúpa presenting itself through the bodysense , which is experienced. When we remember that we call a particular thing a “fork” or a “razor”, or when we remember how to use them, the reality presenting itself at that moment is a kind of nåma. Realities are experienced through the six doorways, presenting themselves one at a time. They are not a person, not a thing which can stay, they are nåma and rúpa which arise and then fall away immediately. This is the truth which can be directly experienced, this is the “world” in the ariyan discipline. Is this not more simple than you would have thought at first? There is thinking when you are shaving. Is that not different from seeing , from touching? Attachment or aversion may arise on account of what is experienced. Are these not realities different from seeing, from visible object, from the experience of tangible object or from the rúpas which are experienced through the bodysense? It would be helpful to realize that all these realities which appear are different, that they have different characteristics. They are nåma and rúpa which arise because of conditions, not self. We cling so much to concepts and ideas which we convey to others by means of conventional terms in language. We cling to saññå, we are infatuated with all the ideas and stories we remember, such as razor, fork, person. This blinds us to the world in the ariyan sense. It prevents us from understanding nåma and rúpa as they present themselves through the six doors, one at a time. ******* Nina. #98199 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 1, 2009 8:39 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (13-14) and commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, sutta 14. Walshe DN 33.1.11(14) 'Four characteristics of a Stream-Winner: Here, the Ariyan disciple is possessed of unwavering confidence in the Buddha, ... in the Dhamma, in the Sangha.. And (d) he is possessed of morality dear to the Noble Ones, unbroken, without defect, unspotted, without inconsistency, liberating, praised by the wise, uncorrupted, and conducive to concentration. ----- N: The subco elaborates on the unshakable confidence of the sotaapanna. Because he has penetrated the truths, he understands the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, and thus, confidence has arisen which cannot be shaken by anything. The Co refers to the explanation in the Visuddhimagga for the words expressing this confidence. Without having developed right understanding one does not know what it means that the Buddha has penetrated the truth of all realities. One does not know what nibbaana is nor what it means that ariyans have attained enlightenment and experienced nibbaana. One may doubt whether it is possible ever to attain enlightenment. As understanding of realities develops confidence in the Buddha’s teachings grows. The sotaapanna has no more doubt about the truths he has penetrated. Because of his firm pa~n~naa his confidence in the Triple Gem has become unshakable, it has become a power (bala). His siila is unbroken, uncorrupted. He has no more conditions to transgress the five precepts. (conclusion) ****** Nina.