#98400 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:34 pm Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Lukas,] Regarding: L: "What is a difference between manasikara and cetana?...What is the proximate cause of cetana?...cetana is also the second factor in patticasamupada isnt it? What is the function of cetana in patticcasamupada?" Scott: Why not check Useful Posts under 'Cetana' and see what is there? I often find myself reviewing old discussions. L: "That's really good to hear that. It always support me very much. I am constant thinking about 'me' and 'I', that is doing this or that. That wills to do this or that. That it wills kusala to arise." Scott: I consider it to be a rather large trap when one misunderstands cetanaa. It is very tempting, when hearing about how various akusala dhammaa are undesirable, to have this be condition for aversion to arise, not to mention anger and conceit. One thinks, 'I must not be angry,' or 'I must not be lustful,' or 'I'm such a bad person because of all these akusala states,' or 'I must work very hard not to have these states arise in me.' Wise consideration would restore the perspective that all of this is never the point. From an experiential point of view, for an ordinary person, I'd say one is closer to the mark when it seems more like 'watching and waiting' than like 'actively doing.' Kusala dhammaa will perform their function if and when they arise according to condition and there need be no worry about it. When its kusala it will be known as such when conditions are right and there won't be any need to think about it or doubt it (although both may arise afterwards). Akusala simply arises with greater frequency than does kusala for the 'beginner.' And one is 'a beginner,' I suspect, for aeons. When kusala dhammaa are absent they are absent and that's all there is to it. The presence or absence of kusala can become the object of some complex of dhammaa at some time or other and no one can say when. This is an unpopular view for those who are swayed by an idea that a person has to be actively engaged in the rooting out of sin. This is, in my view, old-school religion and not Dhamma. The Dhamma is deep and subtle while old-school religion is about as shallow as a film of water and about as subtle as a sledge-hammer. You will hear the above view characterised as representing an acceptance of akusala or an encouragement of akusala or some such. This, of course, misses the point and you need not be influenced by this. Unless you find yourself so influenced and then, don't worry, its not you, its just dhammaa arising due to conditions. Nothing personal. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #98401 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:40 pm Subject: Physical Phenomena (20) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (20) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 1. The Four Great Elements (the end part) Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- Realities are not what they appear to be. One may be infatuated by the beauty of men and women, but what one takes for a beautiful body are mere ruupa-elements. The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 98) states that the four Great Elements are like the great creatures of a magician who "turns water that is not crystal into crystal, and turns a clod that is not gold into gold...." We are attached to crystal and gold, we are deceived by the outward appearance of things. There is no crystal or gold in the ultimate sense, only ruupas which arise and then fall away. We may be able to know the difference between the moments that we are absorbed in concepts and ideas and mindfulness of realities such as hardness or heat which appear one at a time. Mindfulness (sati) arises with kusala citta and it is mindful of one naama or ruupa at a time. When we are, for example, stung by a mosquito, we may have aversion towards the pain and we may be forgetful of realities such as heat experienced at that moment through the bodysense. When there are conditions for kusala citta with mindfulness, whatever reality appears can be object of mindfulness. This is the way gradually to develop the understanding which knows naama and ruupa as they are: only elements that are impermanent and devoid of self. As we read in the "Greater Discourse of the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint", different "parts of the body" are mentioned where the characteristics of the four Great Elements are apparent. The aim is to see the body as it really is. When Saariputta explained about the four Great Elements he repeated after each section: "...By means of perfect intuitive wisdom it should be seen of this as it really is, thus: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself...." ------------------------------ The End of Chapter 1 The Four Great Elements. Chapter 2 The Eight Inseparable Ruupas will start from the next post. with metta, Han #98402 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Physical Phenomena (07) to (20) hantun1 Dear All, We have just finished reading the Chapter on the Four Great Elements, and I have some thoughts on this topic. In Burma, the Traditional Practitioners pay special attention to these Four Great Elements. When these four great elements are in harmony, we are well and healthy. When they are disturbed we get sick. So the Traditional Practitioners, when treating a patient, will first diagnose which of the four great elements is the most disturbed [they can know that by the signs and symptoms of the patient], and they will prescribe the medicine accordingly. In this connection, I remember SN 35.238 Aasiivisopama sutta: The Simile of the Vipers. Bhikkhus, suppose there were four vipers of fierce heat and deadly venom. Then a man would come along wanting to live, not wanting to die, desiring happiness and averse to suffering. They would tell him: [Good man, these four vipers are of fierce heat and deadly venom. From time to time they must be lifted up; from time to time they must be bathed; from time to time they must be fed; from time to time they must be laid to rest. But if one or another of these vipers ever becomes angry with you, then, good man, you will meet death or deadly suffering. Do whatever has to be done, good man!] The Commentary explains that these four vipers are (i) the wooden-mouthed (ka.t.thamukha) whose bite causes the entire body of the victim to stiffen like dry wood; (ii) the putrid-mouthed (puutimukha), whose bite makes the body of the victim to decay and ooze like a decaying fruit; (iii) the fiery-mouthed (aggimukha), whose bite causes the body of the victim to burn up and scatter like ashes or chaff; and (iv) the dagger-mouthed (satthamukha), whose bite causes the body of the victim to break apart like a pole struck by lightning. The Commentary then correlates each element with a particular family of vipers: the earth element with the wooden-mouthed; the water element with the putrid-mouthed; the fire element with the fiery-mouthed; and the air element with the dagger-mouthed. Like the man in the sutta, I take good care of the four vipers. But as my age advances, these four vipers tend to get more agitated and easily disturbed. I dutifully lift them up regularly; bathe them regularly; feed them regularly; and lay them to rest regularly. And yet they seem to get more and more dissatisfied and getting angrier day by day. I do not know which viper will give me the last lethal bite! Yours truly, Han #98403 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:01 pm Subject: Without Fear!!! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Overcoming Fear for any Bad Destination! Once in Savatth i the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, any Noble Disciple, who possesses four things has transcended all fear of any bad future destination. What four? 1: Here, any Noble Disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha thus: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! Consummated in knowledge & behaviour, totally transcended, expert in all dimensions, knower of all worlds, unsurpassable trainer of those who can be tamed, teacher & guide of gods as well as of humans, blessed, exalted, awakened & enlightened is the Buddha!!! 2: Any Noble Disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Dhamma thus: Perfectly formulated is this Buddha-Dhamma, visible right here & now, immediately effective, timeless, inviting each & everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, examine & verify. Leading each & everyone through progress towards perfection. Directly observable, experiencable & realizable by each intelligence... 3: Any Noble Disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Sangha thus: Perfectly training is this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's Noble disciples: Training the right way, the true way, the good way, the direct way! Therefore do these 8 kinds of individuals, these 4 Noble pairs, deserve both gifts, self-sacrifice, offerings, hospitality and reverential salutation with joined palms, since this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's Noble disciples, is an unsurpassable & forever unsurpassed field of merit, in this world, for this world, to respect, and protect... 4: Any Noble Disciple possesses the Morality esteemed by the Noble ones: Unbroken, untorn, unspotted, freeing, praised by the good, inducing concentration! Any Noble Disciple, who possesses these four things has transcended and gone all beyond all fear of a bad destination, rightly beyond all fear of a painful future... <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:364] section 55: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 14: The Bad Destination... Have a nice fearless day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Without Fear!!! #98404 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:26 pm Subject: Re: Be here now nichiconn Dear Scott, s: This is an unpopular view for those who are swayed by an idea that a person has to be actively engaged in the rooting out of sin. This is, in my view, old-school religion and not Dhamma. The Dhamma is deep and subtle while old-school religion is about as shallow as a film of water and about as subtle as a sledge-hammer. You will hear the above view characterised as representing an acceptance of akusala or an encouragement of akusala or some such. This, of course, misses the point and you need not be influenced by this. Unless you find yourself so influenced and then, don't worry, its not you, its just dhammaa arising due to conditions. Nothing personal. ;-) c: Indeed! It's pure old school buddhism: connected discourses, Nandana: 33 "How many days can one practise the ascetic life / If one does not rein in one's mind? / One would founder with each step / Under the control of one's intentions." peace, connie #98405 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] sarahprocter... Hi Howard, #98349 --- On Tue, 9/6/09, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: This last comment of yours seems at variance with the ones of mine that you agreed with above. Surely, if it is jhana citta, then that's what it is and if it's something else - say wrong concentration called jhana- then it's another kind of citta. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- J:> My point is that actual jhana cittas, those described and endorsed by the Buddha, are what they are whenever and in "whomever" they arise, but the so-called "jhanas" of his teachers may well be something else. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: We agree that jhana cittas are jhana cittas whenever they arise. If you were referring to "the so-called 'jhanas'" of many modern teachers, I'd agree that they may well be "something else". However, I'm quite sure the Buddha, Maha-Mogallana, Sariputta or other key disciples would have said it the jhanas they'd attained under earlier teachers were not really jhanas after all and the same would apply to what those teachers proclaimed. On the contrary, I think it's very clear that they had attained the highest jhanas before discovering and hearing the Truths. .... ------------ --------- --------- --------- --- >>S: What do you understand, according to the Buddha's Teachings, to be the object of the different jhana cittas, especially the 8th & 9th ones? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- H:> I haven't much of a clue about the 8th & 9th except that 1) investigation of dhammas, excpetionally according to the Anupada sutta) isn't possible in them, and 2) they may be portals to path consciousnesses. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: Taken from Narada's translation of the Abidhammattha Sangaha: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm (aruupaavacara kusala cittaani-4) (9) aakaasaana~ncaayatana-kusalacittam, (10) vi~n~naana~ncaayatana-kusalacittam, (11) aaki~nca~n~naayatana-kusala, (12) n'eva-sa~n~naa-n'aasa~n~naayatana-kusalacitt~n c'ati. <..> (Formless-Sphere Moral Consciousness - 4) (1) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on the "Infinity of Space", (2) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on the "Infinity of Consciousness", [S: the object is the first aruupa jhaana citta] (3) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on "Nothingness", (4) Moral Jhaana consciousness wherein "Perception neither is nor is not". [S: the object is the third arrupa jhaana citta] These are the four types of aruupa-jhaana Moral consciousness." S: In other words, the objects of these (the highest jhaana cittas)have their own specific objects. There is no 'investigation of dhammas' in them and they are only 'portals' or 'bases' or proximate conditions for path consciousness if they are directly understood as impermanent, conditioned dhammas after they've fallen away. This is in just the same way any other naama or ruupa can be the proximate condition or 'portal' for path consciousness if it is directly understood as an object of satipa.t.thaana just prior to enlightenment. Whether it be lobha, dosa, jhaana citta or visible object - any dhamma at any time can be the 'portal' for enlightenment if the conditions are in place. Anyway, just sharing my understanding to date, Howard. Metta, Sarah ======== #98406 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Suan, Whenever any of us write or quote from texts, we are in effect including our personal understandings of the traditional Theravada teachings, aren't we? For example, you write: --- On Tue, 9/6/09, abhidhammika wrote: >...I have upgraded my formal Aanaapaanassati meditation to an intensive satipatthaana practice with inhalation and exhalation as the meditation objects. ... Sarah: I've asked you several times what the purpose of your practice is and have received no response. Your sentence here indicates your own personal interpretation of what satipa.t.thaana is - an interpretation that it includes a " formal ......practice with inhalation and exhalation as the meditation objects". ... >I have both adavanced Pali textual knowledge (pariyatti) and practice-based knowledge (pa.tipatti, bhaavanaamayana aa.na). So, if I declared that you misunderstood Satipa.t.thaana Sutta, my declaration was based on advanced levels of pariyatti and pa.tipatti. .... Sarah: Again, you are introducing your own personal opinions as to what pariyatti and pa.tipatti are. We know there are many 'Pali experts' who have no understanding at all about satipa.t.thaana, about dhammaa as anatta, for example. If you have a quote to indicate the Buddha ever suggested that pariyatti was 'advance Pali textual knowledge', I'll be interested to see it. ... >Simliarly, for Sarah, I may reopen the thread regarding K Sujin's misunderstanding of sati where Sarah's answers to my questions were inadequate or wrong. ... Sarah: Anytime. Please re-quote the numbers of my messages you're responding to, if it's convenient, when you do so. As I recall, I was careful to give textual support. ... >So, Jon and Sarah, you both need exercise patience till I come to have spare time to provide you with Pali textual citations and their translations how you have the wrong views and the wrong speech. >Exercising patience is the practice of khamaa and khanti. The purpose of this practice is to reduce your anger and frustration for having to wait for my availability of spare time to reopen the threads that would remove your wrong views. .... Sarah: I assure you, Suan, that there's no trace of anger or frustration this end by any delays on your part:-) Take your time. We're often the slowest to respond, so have no problem with others also being slow. ... >For now, though, please enjoy a long breather with your wrong views unresolved! :-) ... Sarah: We've all had our wrong views "unresolved" for aeons and aeons, haven't we? So a few more hundreds of posts won't hurt :-) Always fun chatting, Suan. Perhaps one day we can talk about the seeing or visible object or any other presently appearing dhamma. This way, we can begin to understand the meaning of anatta, beyond anyone's control. Metta, Sarah ========= #98407 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:37 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, When we have listened to the Dhamma we understand in theory that there is no self, no being, but our understanding is still weak. We do not directly experience the truth of realities as they appear one at a time. We cling to the khandhas and have an idea that they can last. Do we have a notion of a whole of mind and body, of my personality? What we take for a whole of mind and body are only five khandhas which arise and fall away. We also cling to rpas outside ourselves and consider them as things which last. Dont we cling to our possessions, to our house and all the things in it? We may be stingy, we may not be inclined to give things away. We should remember that what we take for our possessions are only rpa-kkhandha which arises and falls away. There is not necessarily wrong view every time we cling to the khandhas. We may just be attached to our body without there being wrong view about it. We can cling to the khandhas with conceit. When we have conceit and compare our body or our mental qualities with those of someone else there cannot be wrong view at the same time. Conceit and wrong view cannot arise together. We learn from the Abhidhamma that there are eight different types of lobha-mla-cittas, cittas which are rooted in attachment, of which four are accompanied by wrong view, ditthi, and four unaccompanied by wrong view. When one has studied the Dhamma and acquired intellectual understanding about the nature of not self of realities it does not mean that one has realized the truth of not self. We have accumulated so much ignorance about realities and the latent tendency of wrong view has not been eradicated. Only the sotpanna who has developed understanding to the degree that enlightenment could be realized has eradicated the latent tendency to wrong view. Pa, right understanding, must be developed in order to realize nma and rpa as impermanent and not self. You wrote to me that when you have wrong view, it can be recognized as such. It is not easy to know exactly when there is clinging with wrong view and when without wrong view. Only when pa is keener it can know the different characteristics of realities more clearly. ****** Nina. #98408 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg D ear Scott and Lukas, Op 12-jun-2009, om 22:34 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Akusala simply arises with greater frequency than does kusala for > the 'beginner.' And one is 'a beginner,' I suspect, for aeons. ------ N: Good to hear this. I also like Lukas' remark: ------ N: I am also thinking all the time about 'me' doing this or that. Nina. #98409 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipers. Physical Phenomena (07) to (20) nilovg Dear Han, Op 13-jun-2009, om 2:50 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Like the man in the sutta, I take good care of the four vipers. But > as my age advances, these four vipers tend to get more agitated and > easily disturbed. I dutifully lift them up regularly; bathe them > regularly; feed them regularly; and lay them to rest regularly. And > yet they seem to get more and more dissatisfied and getting angrier > day by day. I do not know which viper will give me the last lethal > bite! ------- N: Thank you for your quotes and observations. The method of Ayurveda also has this view of treating diseases. I would like to go more deeply into the meaning. The four Great Elements are compared to vipers to show the danger of clinging to them. We cling to the Element of Earth, to hardness and softness and take them for my important body. They are only elements that are beyond control. Who can control these vipers? They suddenly bite when we are not mindful. Quite unexpectantly. We do not know how we shall reach the end of this life, but we are safe if we develop right understanding on and on, of all dhammas that appear. There is no reason for fear or worry, but I know that you agree with this. ****** Nina. #98410 From: han tun Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:16 am Subject: Re: Vipers. Physical Phenomena (07) to (20) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your deeper meaning of the four Great Elements and your reminder with regard to the danger of clinging to them. . > Nina: I would like to go more deeply into the meaning. The four Great Elements are compared to vipers to show the danger of clinging to them. We cling to the Element of Earth, to hardness and softness and take them for my important body. They are only elements that are beyond control. Who can control these vipers? They suddenly bite when we are not mindful. Quite unexpectantly. We do not know how we shall reach the end of this life, but we are safe if we develop right understanding on and on, of all dhammas that appear. There is no reason for fear or worry, but I know that you agree with this. ---------- Han: I agree with this, Nina, although my conviction on *no control* and *no clinging* may not be as strong as yours. But I have no fear or worry: whatever will be, will be. Respectfully, Han #98411 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:38 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Scott (98347) > =================== > Scott: This is Udana 1, 10. Here's John Ireland's translation (ATI - the one given was Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation): > > "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. > > "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > > And the Paa.li: > > Tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba.m " 'di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissatii 'ti. Eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba.m. Yato kho te, baahiya, di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati, tato tva.m, baahiya, na tena; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tena tato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha, tato tva.m, baahiya, nevidha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa' 'ti. > =================== Many thanks for giving the Pali for this sutta (I see there is no specific mention of wrong view, so I was obviously off the mark there ;-)) Jon #98412 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:39 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Howard (98348) > =================== > Insight knowledge is a matter of specified (rather than unspecified) > conditions. As Nina pointed out in her answer to your post, those conditions > are neatly summarised in the Sangiiti Sutta. > =============================== > In looking through that sutta, I see many very long lists - lists of > single things, double, triple, quadruple, ..., up to ten things "perfectly > proclaimed by the Buddha," but nowhere do I see a list of conditions > specified as those leading to liberating wisdom. Can you provide a clear and > unambiguous citation of that? > =================== I had in mind the 'Four factors of Stream-Attainment (sotaapattiyangaani) the commentary to which was given by Nina at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/98174 (However, I was mistaken in my recollection that Nina had mentioned this passage to you in reply to your message to me. Apologies for the confusion.) Those factors are: - 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). > =================== > On the other hand, in the Ahara Sutta, Sn 46.51, what is given as > conditions is "fostering of appropriate attention" to a variety of useful > qualities, as follows: > =================== The qualities spoken of in the Ahara Sutta as being the object of "fostering of appropriate attention" are not just wholesome qualities but include unwholesome qualities as well (see for example the second paragraph of the passage quoted where it refers to "mental qualities that are skillful & unskillful"). I would assume that "appropriate attention" refers to the wholesome mental factor of yoniso manasikara. So I would see this as another instance of a conventional expression ("To foster appropriate attention to them") being used to describe dhammas. Jon > Feeding the Factors for Awakening > "Now, what is the food for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor > for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for > Awakening once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that act as a > foothold for mindfulness as a factor for Awakening [well-purified virtue & > views made straight]. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food > for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening, or for > the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has > arisen. > "And what is the food for the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as > a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of analysis of > qualities... once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that are skillful & > unskillful, blameworthy & blameless, gross & refined, siding with darkness & > with light. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for > the arising of unarisen analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, or > for the growth & increase of analysis of qualities... once it has arisen. ... #98413 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:40 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Suan (98351) > =================== > Jon wrote: > > "To take an example we are all familiar with, the descriptions given in > the Satipatthana Sutta are not, to my understanding, exercises to be > followed or techniques to be practised, but describe the arising of > consciousness accompanied by sati-sampajanna in different > circumstances." > > Thank you for having declared how you understood Satipatthana Sutta. > > I am afraid, though, that your understanding was not how Aanada, who > heard and transmitted this sutta to us, understood it and how > Buddhaghosa understood it. > > Therefore, I have no choice but to declare that your understanding was > your personal opinion, and deviated from traditional Theravada > teachings. > =================== Please share with us your understanding of the traditional Theravada teachings as found in the Satipatthana Sutta. Simply saying that you disagree with another member does not take the matter very far ;-)). In what respect do you understand the Satipatthana Sutta to be describing exercises to be followed or techniques to be practised? Jon #98414 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:42 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Scott (98358) > =================== > Regarding: > > Udana 1, 10. > > "...When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > > Tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba.m" 'di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissatii 'ti. Eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba.m. Yato kho te, baahiya, di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati, tato tva.m, baahiya, na tena; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tena tato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha; yato tva.m, baahiya, na tattha, tato tva.m, baahiya, nevidha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa' 'ti. > > Scott: I'm curious, since I can't see any reason for it in the Paa.li, as to why the English is punctuated: > > "...you are not 'with that'...'you are not 'in that'." > > Why not: > > "...'you' are not with that... and 'you' are not in that'"? > =================== I think the inverted commas here indicate a literal translation, rather than an emphasis of meaning. The commentary (quoted by Sarah, set out again at the end of this message) seems to be saying that just awareness and understanding of dhammas is being referred to. What do you think? Jon Peter Masefield translation with commentary notes [1] When for you, Baahiya, with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen,......cognised, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therewith*. [2] When you, Baahiya, are not *therewith*, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therein*. [3] When you , Baahiya, are not *therein*, then you, Baahiya, will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both - this alone is the end of dukkha". Udana 1:10 commentary. [Square brackets give insertions taken from PM's notes]: [1] "you will not be *therewith*" "Therewith (tena): with that seen and so on, or alternatively with that lust and so forth that is subject to the seen and so on. This is what is said: "Baahiya, at such time as, or alternatively as a result of that reason by means of which, there will be for you, as you are practising the method spoken of by me, with respect to the seen and so on merely the seen and so forth, through unequivocal awareness as to their own nature [sabhava], at that time, or alternatively as a result of that [tena va] reason, you will not be in concert with that lust and so on [raagaadinaa saha na bhavissasi] that is subject to the seen and so forth, you will not be either excited or blemished or deluded, or alternatively you will not be subject, in concert with the seen and so on, (thereto,) on account of your being one for whom lust and so on are abandoned [pahiinaraagaadikattaa]." [2] " then you will not be *therein*". When, or alternatively since, you will be neither excited with [these refs to `with' refer back to >therewith (tena)< above] that lust [tena raagena vaa ratto], blemished with that anger, nor deluded with that delusion, then, or alternatively therefore, you will not be therein, in that seen and so on, you will not be attached, established, either in that seen or in that heard, sensed, cognised, by way of craving, conceit and (wrong) view thinking "This is mine, this I am, this is for me the self" - to this extent there is indicated, by causing full understanding as to abandoning to reach the summit, the plane of the one in whom the aasavas have been destroyed. [3] "then you will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both". When you, Baahiya, will not be therein, subject to the seen and so forth, with that lust and so on, then you will be neither in this world nor in the next world, nor also [pi] in both [ubhayattha]. >This alone is the end of dukkha (es'ev'anto dukkhassa)<: for this alone is the end, this the demarcation, limitation [paricchedo pariva.tumabhaavo], of dukkha in the form of the defilements and of dukkha belonging to the cycle......'" #98415 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:18 am Subject: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no1 szmicio Dear friends Chapter 7: ---------------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98416 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:24 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends, Bhante continues: ----------------- My best wishes Lukas #98417 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:47 am Subject: Re: Not Posted: [Fwd: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Mike: Hindrances and jhaana.] upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/13/2009 1:51:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: (Formless-Sphere Moral Consciousness - 4) (1) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on the "Infinity of Space", (2) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on the "Infinity of Consciousness", [S: the object is the first aruupa jhaana citta] (3) Moral Jhaana consciousness dwelling on "Nothingness", (4) Moral Jhaana consciousness wherein "Perception neither is nor is not". [S: the object is the third arrupa jhaana citta] These are the four types of aruupa-jhaana Moral consciousness." S: In other words, the objects of these (the highest jhaana cittas)have their own specific objects. There is no 'investigation of dhammas' in them and they are only 'portals' or 'bases' or proximate conditions for path consciousness if they are directly understood as impermanent, conditioned dhammas after they've fallen away. This is in just the same way any other naama or ruupa can be the proximate condition or 'portal' for path consciousness if it is directly understood as an object of satipa.t.thaana just prior to enlightenment. Whether it be lobha, dosa, jhaana citta or visible object - any dhamma at any time can be the 'portal' for enlightenment if the conditions are in place. Anyway, just sharing my understanding to date, Howard. ================================ As one example, Sarah, in the Anupada Sutta, please compare what occurs within the 7th jhana with what occurs within the 8th: __________________ 16] "And the states in the base of ‘Nothingness’ - the perception of the base of ‘Nothingness’ and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness, the enthusiasm, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one as they occurred; know to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states not having been, come into to being; having been, they vanish.’ Regarding these states he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this’, and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. 17] "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of ‘Nothingness’ Sariputta entered upon and abided in the base of neither perception nor non-perception. 18] "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished. Regarding those states, he abided un-attracted, un-repelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: ‘There is an escape beyond this,’ and with the cultivation of that attainment, he confirmed that there is. ----------------------------------- Within the 7th, Sariputta was able to define various features "one by one AS THEY OCCURRED [emphasis mine]; known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states not having been, come into to being; having been, they vanish. On the other hand, he had to EMERGE from the 8th jhana, and only then, "Having done so, he contemplated the states that had passed, ceased and changed, thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been they vanished." With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98418 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/13/2009 6:40:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Howard (98348) > =================== > Insight knowledge is a matter of specified (rather than unspecified) > conditions. As Nina pointed out in her answer to your post, those conditions > are neatly summarised in the Sangiiti Sutta. > =============================== > In looking through that sutta, I see many very long lists - lists of > single things, double, triple, quadruple, ..., up to ten things "perfectly > proclaimed by the Buddha," but nowhere do I see a list of conditions > specified as those leading to liberating wisdom. Can you provide a clear and > unambiguous citation of that? > =================== I had in mind the 'Four factors of Stream-Attainment (sotaapattiyangaani) the commentary to which was given by Nina at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/98174 (However, I was mistaken in my recollection that Nina had mentioned this passage to you in reply to your message to me. Apologies for the confusion.) ---------------------------------------------- No problem. :-) ---------------------------------------------- Those factors are: - 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). --------------------------------------------- Well, why would you think I don't accept these as leading to insight and eventual awakening? Of course they do. And these, by the way, ARE specific practices, despite your having said "Insight knowledge is not a matter of practising a certain technique, to my understanding." We don't associate with people we can learn from by accident but by intention - at least I do. We don't attend to the Dhamma by accident but intentionally - at least I do. We don't pay attention to the teachings and to whatever arises in the moment and its nature by accident, but by intention and by intentional cultivation of the habit of being aware - at least I do. And we don't practice the Dhamma in its entirety by accident, but intentionally - at least I do. And practicing the Dhamma in its entirety is indispensable. =========================== 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) #98419 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 6/13/2009 8:25:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Dear friends, Bhante continues: ----------------- My best wishes Lukas =================================== Reflecting on one's actions "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do. "While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it. "Having performed a bodily act, you should reflect on it... If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental qualities. ...[similarly for verbal and mental acts]... "Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental acts through repeated reflection.' That is how you should train yourself." — _MN 61_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html) With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98420 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:18 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Scott > L: "What is a difference between manasikara and cetana?...What is the proximate cause of cetana?...cetana is also the second factor in patticasamupada isnt it? What is the function of cetana in patticcasamupada?" > > Scott: Why not check Useful Posts under 'Cetana' and see what is there? I often find myself reviewing old discussions. L: Yes, I will try to check UP. But if anyone want to quote on cetana and manasikara or add something more I would appreciate it. Sometimes I am not in mood to read a lot of Texts and this short passages are such a good reminders. For example Han's rupas are extraordinarily helpful to me. Very good remiders on each day. > This is an unpopular view for those who are swayed by an idea that a person has to be actively engaged in the rooting out of sin. This is, in my view, old-school religion and not Dhamma. The Dhamma is deep and subtle while old-school religion is about as shallow as a film of water and about as subtle as a sledge-hammer. You will hear the above view characterised as representing an acceptance of akusala or an encouragement of akusala or some such. This, of course, misses the point and you need not be influenced by this. Unless you find yourself so influenced and then, don't worry, its not you, its just dhammaa arising due to conditions. Nothing personal. ;-) L: That's such a great condition to metta to know that everything is conditioned, isnt it Scott? We can see people that act in a bad way, but we dont see any self in it. Just conditioned moments of citta cetasika and rupa. And then metta can grow when understanding will grow. I like Ninas recent reminders on pariyatti which is not only reading and hearing , but reading with wise attention. and then patipati is direct understanding of citta, cetasika and ruupa. pariyatii is a condition to patipati, so no one there that can make patipati to arise. I remember also Sarah's answer on my question: "How do you deal with lobha". She said: "I dont". Just a couple of thoughts. My best wishes Lukas #98421 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:26 am Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear connie, Regarding: c: "Indeed! It's pure old school buddhism: connected discourses, Nandana: 33 'How many days can one practise the ascetic life / If one does not rein in one's mind? / One would founder with each step / Under the control of one's intentions.'" Scott: I like this one, connie, thanks. SN 1, 17 (7) Dukkarasutta.m Katiha.m careyya saama~n~na.m, citta.m ce na nivaaraye; Pade pade visiideyya, sa.nkappaana.m vasaanugo 'ti. Scott: The commentary is given in Bh. Bodhi's translation, concerning 'pade pade' (p.350): "In each object(aaramma.ne aaramma.ne); for whenever a defilement arises in relation to any object, it is just there that one founders (visidati). But the phrase can also be interpreted by way of the modes of deportment (iriyaapatha); if a defilement arises while one is walking (standing, sitting, or lying down), it is just there that one founders. Intentions (sa.nkappa) should be understood by way of the three wrong intentions, i.e., of sensuality, ill will, and harming." Citta~nce na nivaarayeti yadi ayoniso uppanna.m citta.m na nivaareyya, kati ahaani saama~n~naṃ careyya? Ekadivasampi na careyya. Cittavasiko hi sama.nadhamma.m kaatu.m na sakkoti. Pade padeti aaramma.ne aaramma,ne. Aaramma.na~nhi idha padanti adhippeta.m. Yasmi.m yasmi.m hi aaramma.ne kileso uppajjati, tattha tattha baalo visiidati naama. Iriyaapathapadampi va.t.tati. Gamanaadiisu hi yattha yattha kileso uppajjati, tattha tattheva visiidati naama. Sa.nkappaananti kaamasa.nkappaadiina.m. Scott: There's a lot in this! I consider that whether in relation to a given object, or in any of the four modes of deportment - no object or posture excepted - the moment of the arising of the kilesas is the end of 'practise'. And 'practise' is the presence of and concomitant function of whatever mental factors arise with citta in the moment. More support for the case against any thoughts about 'I practise'. 'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas, and has nothing to do with a person intending or planning to do anything. Sincerely, Scott. #98422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipers. Physical Phenomena (07) to (20) nilovg Dear Han, Op 13-jun-2009, om 10:16 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: I agree with this, Nina, although my conviction on *no > control* and *no clinging* may not be as strong as yours. But I > have no fear or worry: whatever will be, will be. ------- N: The fact that you say 'whatever will be, will be' shows already that you understand conditionality. Actually this is another word for no control. As to no clinging, we all cling so long as we are not arahats. But clinging can be understood as a conditioned naama, not my clinging. I say this, but, for me, this is difficult. I forget and need to be reminded. Nina. #98423 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-jun-2009, om 15:15 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on > it: 'This > bodily act I want to perform would it lead to self-affliction, to > the > affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with > painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know > that it would > lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; > it would > be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful > results, > then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. > But if on > reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would > be a > skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then > any > bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do. ------- N: A good sutta that is a helpful reminder. The conventional terms: 'I want to perform', 'you should reflect' actually point to the citta and cetasikas that are accompanied by sati and pa~n~naa. There is yoniso manasikaara that conditions abstention from what is wrong. Thus also when speaking in a conventional way the Buddha pointed to realities. Is it not kusala citta that reflects? What else. There is no person. Nina. #98424 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/13/2009 10:34:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-jun-2009, om 15:15 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on > it: 'This > bodily act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to > the > affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with > painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know > that it would > lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; > it would > be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful > results, > then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. > But if on > reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would > be a > skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then > any > bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do. ------- N: A good sutta that is a helpful reminder. The conventional terms: 'I want to perform', 'you should reflect' actually point to the citta and cetasikas that are accompanied by sati and pa~n~naa. There is yoniso manasikaara that conditions abstention from what is wrong. Thus also when speaking in a conventional way the Buddha pointed to realities. Is it not kusala citta that reflects? What else. There is no person. ----------------------------------------------- Of course. The conventional, terms, however, are meaningful. Without them we could not converse or think. ---------------------------------------------- Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98425 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 12-jun-2009, om 16:24 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: What about moment of reviewing past lokuttara cittas? Is it > lokuttara panna that reviews it or is it mundane panna? ------ N: Mundane pa~n~naa. The lokuttara cittas that arose at the moment of enlightenment have fallen away. ------- > L: When we talk about attaining nibbana without jhana, then there > are 4 magga-cittas and 4 phala-cittas that arise in appropriate order. > So there are 8 lokuttara cittas and nibbana that is an object. But > can nibbana be experienced after it? ------ N: Yes, at the moment of reviewing. I believe it is then a 'not so classifiable object' (navattabbaaramma.na). ----- > > > > L: When Buddha became a Buddha did he still experience nimitta of > > > realities? > > ------ > > N: Nibbaana is animitta, thus when attaining Buddhahood he > > experienced nibbaana which is animitta. As to being aware of visible > > object, this has just fallen away when being aware of it, no matter > > who is aware of it, a Buddha or an ordinary person. I am not sure we > > can speak of nimitta in the case of a Buddha. He does not live in > the > > world of dreams, like we do. > > --------- > > L: Yes but in the case of mahakiriyacittas of Buddha does he still > has nimitta? Is he aware of reality or aware of shadow of reality? ------- N: We cannot know what a Buddha can fathom. That seems to be speculation. It does not help me now on my way. -------- > > L: There is a kind of nana that is no tender insight and it knows > how things falls away(dont remember the name),does in such moments > of that nana, nimitta is still present? ------ N: You mean the first stage of mahaa vipassanaa ~naa.na that directly knows the arising and falling away of realities. It arises in a mind- door process and pertains to dhammas that have just fallen away. Seeing arises and falls away, but the citta with pa~n~naa that realizes this has to arise afterwards. I do not know whether we can speak of a nimitta of seeing in this case. I cannot answer your question, since I do not know this stage of insight. Kh Sujin emphasizes being aware of characteristics and not pointing to this process or that process. She said, it is so fast it cannot be named. She also said we need not think: it has fallen away. I just heard: . So we should not try to catch the nimitta. I do not know much about nimitta and I understood that we should not worry, just attend to any characteristic that appears. -------- Nina. #98426 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-jun-2009, om 16:48 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Of course. The conventional, terms, however, are meaningful. Without > them we could not converse or think. ------- N: I mean teaching by way of conventional truth and by way of ultimate truth. For both ways words, conventional terms, are necessary. Thus, for the teaching by way of citta, cetasika and ruupa also words are necessary. But these have to be explained and they can help us to understand the truth of non-self. Nina. #98427 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:48 am Subject: Re: Be here now nichiconn Dear Howard, n: Is it not kusala citta that reflects? What else. There is no person. ----------------------------------------------- h: Of course. The conventional, terms, however, are meaningful. Without them we could not converse or think. ---------------------------------------------- c: "Think" of course, also being used conventionally here, another 'we do'. peace, connie #98428 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:51 am Subject: Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. szmicio Dear Nina, I like reminders about present moment. Hovewer, only present moment can be known, considering the whole Dhamma is very helpful. And even those details can be helpful. I remember my old discusion with Connie about Dispeller(navattabbarammana) and ruupas from Vibhanga. I am forgeting what i've read very fast, and thats the way we should read, not to try grasp or try to understand. Just let forget it all what we read. The only way for me to know it again is to rise another question. I like the way mind forget and remembers things. there is so less self in it. Just couple of my thoughts. My best wishes Lukas #98429 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 6/13/2009 11:49:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, n: Is it not kusala citta that reflects? What else. There is no person. ----------------------------------------------- h: Of course. The conventional, terms, however, are meaningful. Without them we could not converse or think. ---------------------------------------------- c: "Think" of course, also being used conventionally here, another 'we do'. ---------------------------------------- Well, forget about the "we" part, but thinking does go on, and "we" do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while "we" are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what "we" make of these. ---------------------------------------- peace, connie ========================== 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) #98430 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:47 pm Subject: Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. nichiconn Dear Lukas, l: I remember my old discusion with Connie about Dispeller(navattabbarammana) and ruupas from Vibhanga. I am forgeting what i've read very fast, and thats the way we should read, not to try grasp or try to understand. Just let forget it all what we read. c: Yes, I was happy to see you bringing this up again. I thought I'd get back to the books sooner - thanks for the prompt! - after awhile it's almost like they are brand new again... just different parts making better sense one time and confusing again the next. peace, connie #98431 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:18 pm Subject: Be here now nichiconn Hi again, Howard, c: "Think" of course, also being used conventionally here, another 'we do'. ---------------------------------------- Well, forget about the "we" part, {c: OK} but thinking does go on, {c: there are cittas and then there are cittas. } and "we" do know it when there is thinking. {c: we?... o, right, forgot, sorry! ;) } So, as regards the 'we', while "we" are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. {c: no difference in what cetasikas arise with which cittas, etc. Nothing particularly unique about any of it.} The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. {c: sure, for example we could start with different levels, spheres or motivations of consciousness} So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. {c: on the other hand, my belief in lasting things or persons, or even 'hardness' as any substantial 'something' are all pretty much "illusory" or "atta(boy)" thinking.} What IS illusion is what "we" make of these. ---------------------------------------- connie: Our attempts to make sense of or give meaning to our generally pointless lives? ... not "worldly" enough I guess that we're reborn to experience the results of past actions. well, just 'my thinking' which seems to approach it from a different direction than yours, so i'm just talking, not trying to be a jerk or anything... lol, no need to try! peace, connie. #98432 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and connie), Regarding: H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." Scott: 'You' and 'I' and 'we' and 'me' are illusion. 'Mind stream' is an illusion, when it is given the self-status it is given above. 'Different mind streams' is entirely conceptual. There is no 'you thinking' and no 'me thinking'. There is no 'difference between you thinking and me thinking'. When an argument is based on a non-existent entity, as in the above, that it holds any water is also an illusion. The 'conventional' is not to be taken literally. Sincerely, Scott. #98433 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Connie) - In a message dated 6/13/2009 8:34:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard (and connie), Regarding: H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." Scott: 'You' and 'I' and 'we' and 'me' are illusion. 'Mind stream' is an illusion, when it is given the self-status it is given above. 'Different mind streams' is entirely conceptual. There is no 'you thinking' and no 'me thinking'. ------------------------------------------------ So, who are you talking to? Do you claim that all cittas arise together in one big homogeneous smudge? When the Buddha spoke of one inheriting one's own kamma, was that BS for the ignorant? Are you asserting that you do not distinguish between the cittas you *call* "Scott" and those you call me? Did the Buddha not distinguish worldlings from stream enterers? Exactly what is it that you are asserting? ----------------------------------------- There is no 'difference between you thinking and me thinking'. --------------------------------------- Nonsense. and I do not believe you really think that, else you are engaging in a soliloquy. -------------------------------------- When an argument is based on a non-existent entity, as in the above, that it holds any water is also an illusion. The 'conventional' is not to be taken literally. ----------------------------------------- The conventional is to be unpacked into the phenomena that are its basis. ----------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98434 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott (and Howard and Connie), Hope you'll pardon the intrusion: Scott wrote: > Dear Howard (and connie), > > Regarding: > > H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' > do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' > are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, > and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising > different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not > entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." > > Scott: 'You' and 'I' and 'we' and 'me' are illusion. I think we're talking about 'vaca'. 'You', 'I' 'we' or 'me' can be either samma vaca or miccha vaca, as I understand it, depending on whether it refers to dhammas or to concepts contrary to the Dhamma. > 'Mind stream' is an > illusion, when it is given the self-status it is given above. 'Different > mind streams' is entirely conceptual. As I see it there can be speech that refers to concepts (e.g. Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) that 'point' at dhammas and other speech that doesn't. Those that don't--like 'mind stream'--are, I think, miccha vaca*. > There is no 'you thinking' and no > 'me thinking'. There is no 'difference between you thinking and me > thinking'. When an argument is based on a non-existent entity, as in the > above, that it holds any water is also an illusion. The 'conventional' > is not to be taken literally. I would say that 'you thinking' or 'me thinking' could refer either to Dhamma or adhamma. It could be speech referring to dhammas (as in the Twofold Thought Sutta) or speech referring to concepts that are contrary to the Dhamma. For what it's worth-- mike *"Miccha-vaca is made up of many dhamma like lobha, moha, ahirika, anottappa, uddhacca etc etc and it is not a single factor or a single dhamma unlike samma-vaca. Likewise miccha-kammanta and miccha-ajiva are also not path-factor dhamma". http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/49379 #98435 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:03 pm Subject: Who are Really Rich??? bhikkhu.sama... Friends: The Really Rich are those who have gained a fine future! Venerable Sāriputta once thanked the householder Anāthapindika with these verses: When one has faith in the Tathagata, Unshakable and well established, And good conduct built on virtue, Dear to the Noble ones and praised; When one has confidence in the Sangha And view that has been rectified, They say, that one is not poor then, That one's life has not been in vain! Therefore the person of intelligence, Remembering the Buddha's Teaching, Should be devoted to faith and purity, To confidence and vision in the Dhamma! Just as the many rivers used by hosts of people, Flowing downstream finally reach the ocean, As the rivers carry their waters to the sea. The great mass of water, the boundless ocean, The fearsome receptacle of heaps of gems; Exactly so do the streams of merit reach any donor, Any good & wise man, giver of food, drink, & clothes, Provider of housing, beds, seats, and coverlets... Just as the rivers carry their waters to the sea! One who has Faith in the Three Jewels, Who purifies his behaviour by pure Morality Having given to those, who seek the absolute, is Really Rich - most wealthy - even without a penny! Anāthapindika was a millionaire banker (setthi) of Sāvatthi, who became famous because of his unparalleled generosity to the Buddha. As kammic result, he was later reborn in the Tusita heaven! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/ay/anaathapindika.htm Sāriputta : The chief disciple (aggasāvaka) of Buddha Gotama . http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/sa/saariputta.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:384] section 55: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 26: Anāthapindika Have a nice rich day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Who are Really Rich??? #98436 From: "jessicamui" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:25 pm Subject: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear Nina and all, I posted the following questions awhile back and still waiting for the answers. Meanwhile, I add one more question to the list: > > First, I'd like to thank Nina and Alberto on answering my earlier questions regarding manasikara. It helps my understanding of the terms and meanings. I really appreciate your help. > > Now while I'm studying MN117, I have a few questions as follows: > > 1. at the end of the sutta, it is said that there are 20 "factors" on the wholesome side, and 20 on the unwholesome side. Together, they make up this great Forty dhamma. But I cannot see where the 20 of each come from. I can only see the 10 path factors that a taintless person has. And the counter side of the 10 unwholesome factors. > > 2. In the sutta, the 8 super-mundane(10 in case of a Arahat)path factors will arise at(or before ?) the moment of super-mundane knowledge arise, ie. the lokuttara cittas taking the Nibanna as object. So are these path factors arise at those moments not the same type as the right view(wisdom) cetasika arising at the mundane level ? If they are, then how can they perceive the super-mundane objects ? If they are not, why the sutta makes the distinction between the mundane and super-mundane levels of the path factors ? > > 3. Does the mind of an Arahat always possess the Noble path factors throughout the day, or it is only when the lokuttara citta arises ? 4. In the thinking process, the thinking/thoughts themselves are cetasikas(vitakka & vicara ?). From what I understandings, the citta is the leaders of cetasikas and its function is "to know". In the thought process, the thoughts (metnal factors) cannot arise without the citta, and what function does this citta perform at the moment that the thought is arising? and what are the conditions for the thoughts to arise ? > > Thanks in advance for your answers !! > > WIth Much Metta, > > Jessica. > #98437 From: sarahprocterabbott@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Mike & Ken H, Belatedly, a few more thoughts on this (M 117) to add to the other quotes and comments I've given... --- On Sun, 7/6/09, m_nease wrote: >>K: Could the sutta be comparing the right view of the arahant with the > right view of the non-arahant? (Rather than comparing supramundane right > view with mundane right view?) ... M:>I suppose it's possible. I'm personally inclined to think not, but I haven't consulted the commentaries or taken a hard look at the translation. If I manage either of these I'll get back to you. ... S: I think the notes make it clear that it's comparing supramundane right view (of all levels) with mundane right view. The defilements/taints are eradicated according to the level. .... >>K: Certainly the arahant's kamma is neither kusala nor akusala. And so his > right view could be described as 'without blemishes.' Non-arahants > (including lesser ariyans) still have kusala and akusala kamma. I > suppose, therefore, that their right view (even their supramundane right > view) could be regarded as kusala kamma. M:>With what vipaaka? .... S: The supramundane magga cittas have the immediately following phala cittas as vipaaka. The right view (and inisght) that is not lokuttara can have results anytime - in this life or future lives. ... >>K: Logically, I can't see why it couldn't condition fortunate rebirth, can you? M:> Well, I may be wrong--I'm just not comfortable with the idea of insight producing vipaaka. (Of course there are results other than rebirth). I suppose it's a fairly elementary question but I'm not sure where to look for the answer. .... S: Under kamma-patha, the kamma which brings results, we have (from Nyantiloka's dict.): >The tenfold wholesome course of action (kusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: avoidance of killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: avoidance of lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; i.e. true, conciliatory, mild, and wise speech; 3 mental actions: unselfishness, good-will, right views. Both lists occur repeatedly, e.g. in A.X.28, 176; M.9; they are explained in detail in M.114, and in Com. to M.9 (R. Und., p. 14), Atthasaalini Tr. I, 126ff.< .... S: Of these, as we know from the texts, sammaa-di.t.thi(right view) is said to be the highest kusala (and therefore likely to bring the greatest results). .... >>K: As for satipatthana (mundane path consciousness) I feel pretty confident it is kusala kamma. No references as usual! :-) M:>If I don't find a source I'm sure someone will 'enlighten' us. ... S: Just cryptic comments, no attempt to 'enlighten' anyone:-). I'm also thinking of the special rebirths of the anagaami, for example... Enjoyed your discussion, thanks. Metta, Sarah ======== #98438 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:50 pm Subject: Re: Be here now nichiconn Dear Scott, Re: #98421 Scott: There's a lot in this! I consider that whether in relation to a given object, or in any of the four modes of deportment - no object or posture excepted - the moment of the arising of the kilesas is the end of 'practise'. And 'practise' is the presence of and concomitant function of whatever mental factors arise with citta in the moment. More support for the case against any thoughts about 'I practise'. 'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas, and has nothing to do with a person intending or planning to do anything. Connie: Yeah, "intention" usually seems to be another of those confusing "daily life situation" with "conditioning" or "dhammic relations" (if you will, haha) sorta thinkings; but cetanaa's a universal cetasika. You ever wonder how people can say they did anything "inadvertently" when of course, there's pa~ncadvaaraavajjana throughout the waking day? Then "intentional" receiving, investigating and determining & finally, javana - kusala, akusala, phala or kiriya, as the case may be, but statistically speaking? "'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas" - Yowsa. Since receiving and investigating are vipakas, it's the the determining that sets the tone? Yes, (a)yoniso manasikaara, I think. -Another long interrupted, barely begun conversation. Trying to remember... lol. Might've been a guarding the senses thread? anyway: First the flavour, neutral feeling, then the 'love'. Liked your magic thinking thinking the other day, btw. lol - my megalomaniacal thinking is a sign of immaturity... or being overly civil-/social-ized. What's sankappa again? PTS... (snip): VbhA 117. Sankappa is defd at DhsA 124 as (cetaso) abhiniropana, i. e. application of the mind. See on term also Cpd. 238. O! and thanks for the sutta paa.li - I can stop 'intending' to look that up now. peace, connie #98439 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yahoo Techno Help (was:Physical Phenomena (11)) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep & all, --- On Sun, 7/6/09, Robert Epstein wrote: S:>>...Sure enough, after reading your note, I checked, and there was almost the entire original kava ceremony post. Just mentioning it for others who don't know about this feature. ... R:>That's great! I'm glad the drafts folder backed you up! .... S: The only problem was that I only discovered it after re-writing and sending the message. Now I have to remember to look in drafts first after losing a message.....a reminder to others using yahoo mail to do the same! ... >That is also good to hear. Do you know how to find the rich text format to turn it on...? That sounds like it has good possibilities. ... S: If you go to the DSG homepage, find the message you wish to reply to, click 'reply', then at the top you should see a line which says: "New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor (Beta)." You then click on this. Worth a try. For my re-quotes from old messages, it would have taken care of the 'squiggles' that cam out.....as usual, I remembered too late. In the yahoo mail, there is also a 'rich-text beta' option, but I don't find it helpful at all. If anyone else has problems with accessing or posting on DSG anytime, please feel free to send a note off-list to Jon, Ken, Scott, me, Rob or anyone else! Metta, Sarah ===== #98440 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "The conventional is to be unpacked into the phenomena that are its basis." Scott: Please unpack the following: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." Sincerely, Scott. #98441 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:59 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta (was, Re: effort.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep & all, --- On Sun, 7/6/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >>S:...... Very funny. R:> Thanks for the appreciation. I think humor is a helpful lubricant at times to the minute discussions that are sometimes necessary. And I am glad you also find it enjoyable, as do I. ... S: Yes, I totally agree. Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously, for sure, and I think this is usually indicative of the conceit and possibly wrong view of self which are so often at work. ... >>S: Rob Ep still holds the record for the longest marathon posts after all these years! R:>Well, I'm not sure if that is a real achievement or not, or just causing more suffering, but it is good to know. :-) ... S: :-)) Metta, Sarah ======= #98442 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) sarahprocter... Hi Jessica, Nina and Han did respond to the first set of excellent questions*. I was looking forward to your further comments. I'll just give a quick answer to the new (last) question as I'm 'here': --- On Sun, 14/6/09, jessicamui wrote: >4. In the thinking process, the thinking/thoughts themselves are cetasikas(vitakka & vicara ?). From what I understandings, the citta is the leaders of cetasikas and its function is "to know". In the thought process, the thoughts (metnal factors) cannot arise without the citta, and what function does this citta perform at the moment that the thought is arising? and what are the conditions for the thoughts to arise ? ... S: Let me rephrase the first sentence: In the thinking process, many cetasikas (notably vitakka and vicara) assist the citta in experiencing its object, usually a concept or 'thought'. As you say, the citta is always the leader and its function is just 'to know' or experience the object. It is the accompanying cetasikas which mark the object (sa~n~naa), touch and think about the object (vitakka and vicaara), focus on the object (ekaggata), etc. The thought or concept does not arise because it is 'imagined' or 'thought'. It is not a reality. The function of the citta when it is experienced is that - just to experience the object. Just a seeing consciousness only experience visible object and makes no value judgments, does not remember anything about it and so on, so the thinking consciousness just experiences the concept by 'habit', by natural decisive support condition. You might ask why there is the associating of particular visible objects with 'sunrise'. This is mostly due to the accumulated sa~n~naa, again by natural decisive condition, along with vitakka, vicaara and other factors. Hope this helps. NIna and others may add more. Metta, Sarah *If you go to the DSG website, open any message and type in "jessica" in the search space, you'll quickly find the replies to the other questions and maybe other messages addressed to you as well! =========== #98443 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "I think we're talking about 'vaca'. 'You', 'I' 'we' or 'me' can be either samma vaca or miccha vaca, as I understand it, depending on whether it refers to dhammas or to concepts contrary to the Dhamma." Scott: Very true. In examining views, such as those expressed by Howard, I can't help recalling that these are always given with the oft-stated underlying notion that it is possible to 'intentionally practise'. With this in mind, I read where words and phrases which might look as if they are samma-vaacaa are actually miccha-vaacaa because they come from a view which considers it valid that a being practises intentionally. Since this is not at all the case, I consider any use of these phrases in these cases to be misleading. I agree. It depends on whether it refers to dhammaa or pa~n~natti contrary to the Dhamma, and a being who practises and can cause to arise certain dhammaa by such intending is not Dhamma. M: "As I see it there can be speech that refers to concepts (e.g. Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) that 'point' at dhammas and other speech that doesn't. Those that don't--like 'mind stream'--are, I think, miccha vaca*." Scott: Yes. Again true. Mind-stream, considered properly, is just a manner of speech - not a real thing. M: "I would say that 'you thinking' or 'me thinking' could refer either to Dhamma or adhamma. It could be speech referring to dhammas (as in the Twofold Thought Sutta) or speech referring to concepts that are contrary to the Dhamma. Scott: When there is talk about someone who knows that there is someone else who is thinking and that these thoughts mean that there are two thinkers and that this must be self-evident, I consider this all to be conceptual and contrary to the Dhamma. I wonder if there is ever a time when citta can experience citta arising 'elsewhere' as an object? There is the supernormal jhaana attainment that is sort of like that isn't there? I wonder what its object actually is? M: "For what it's worth--" Scott: :-) *"Miccha-vaca is made up of many dhamma like lobha, moha, ahirika, anottappa, uddhacca etc etc and it is not a single factor or a single dhamma unlike samma-vaca. Likewise miccha-kammanta and miccha-ajiva are also not path-factor dhamma". > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/49379 > #98444 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:56 pm Subject: Re: Be here now nichiconn Hi again, Scott - for what it's worth, re: c: What's sankappa again? PTS... (snip): VbhA 117. Sankappa is defd at DhsA 124 as (cetaso) abhiniropana, i. e. application of the mind. See on term also Cpd. 238. = Dispeller of Delusion, Classification of the Truths (2) Right Thinking 554. In the description of Right Thinking, "escaped from sense desire" is nekkhamma-sa"nkappo ("thinking of renunciation"); "escaped from ill will" is avyaapaada-sa"nkappo ("thinking of non-ill-will"); "escaped from cruelty" is avihs.msaa-sa"nkappo ("thinking of non-cruelty"). Herein, applied thought of renunciation arises destroying and cutting away the foundation of applied though of sense-desire; likewise applied thought of non-ill-will for applied thought of ill will and applied thought of non-cruelty for applied thought of cruelty. Applied thought of renunciation arises as the opposite of applied thought of sense desire, and applied thought of non-ill-will and non-cruelty [as the respective opposites] of applied thought of ill will and cruelty. 555. Herein the meditator, for the purpose of destroying the foundation of applied thought of sense desire, comprehends either the applied thought of sense desire or any other formation. Then at the moment of insight, thinking which is associated with insight arises in him effecting the destroying and the cutting-away of the foundation of applied thought of sense desire through substitution by opposite qualities. Pursuing insight, he reaches the path. Then, at the moment of the path, thinking which is associated with the path arises in him effecting the destroying and the cutting-away of the foundation of applied thought of sense desire through cutting off. For the purpose of destroying the foundation of ill will, he comprehends either applied thought of ill will or any other formation; and forthe purpose of destroying the foundation of applied thought of cruelty [he comprehends] either applied thought of cruelty or any other formation. [And repeating:] "Then at the moment of insight" and so on, all should be considered as before. 556. But among the 38 objects classified in the Paa.li there is no single meditation subject which is not opposed to the three beginning with applied thought of sense desire. But it is the first jhaana in the foul, firstly, that is particularly opposed to applied thought of sense desire, and the triad and tetrad of jhaanas in amity which are opposed to applied thought of ill will, and the triad and tetrad of jhaanas in compassion which are opposed to applied thought of cruelty. 557. Therefore, in one who has entered upon jhaana by doing preliminary work on the foul, at the time of attainment thinking which is associated with jhaana arises and is opposed to applied thought of sense desire by suppressing it. In one who is establishing insight by making the jhaana the basis for it, at the moment of insight thinking which is associated with insight arises and is opposed to applied thought of sense desire by substitution of opposite qualities. In one who attains the path by pursuing insight, at the moment of the path thinking which is associated with the path arises and is opposed to applied thought of sense desire by cutting off. Being thus arisen it should be understood to be called thinking of renunciation. But [saying:] "In one who has entered upon jhaana by doing the preliminary work on amity; in one who has entered upon jhaana by doing the preliminary work on compassion" and so on, all should be construed as before. Being thus arisen it should be understood to be called thinking of non-ill-will, to be called thinking of non-cruelty. 558. Thus these, namely, thinking of renunciation and so on, are multiple in the prior stage because of the multiplicity of arising through insight and jhaana. But at the moment of the path, profitable thinking arises singly fulfilling the path factor by accomplishing non-arising because of cutting away the foundation of the unprofitable thinking which had arisen in these three instances. This is Right Thinking. = Expositor, Ch.I - Of the Summary of Conscious States As to the next five terms,^2 right view conveys the meaning of vision; right intention, that of mental application;^3 right endeavour, that of support; right mindfulness, that of presence (or being at hand); right concentration, that of absence of distraction. As regards word-definitions: - that which sees rightly, or by which beings see objects rightly - this is right view. That which plans rightly, or by which beings plan rightly - this is right intention. That which rightly endeavours, or by which beings rightly endeavour - this is right endeavour. That which remembers rightly, or by which beings remember objects rightly - this is right mindfulness. That which evenly keeps the consciousness on the object, or by which associated states evenly keep the consciousness on the object - this is right concentration. Again, a praiseworthy or beautiful view is right view. In this way the word-definition should be understood. Their characteristics, etc., have been stated above. {p163 n2: Dhs $$20-24. 'Right' (sammaa) has here the sense of irreversibility and escape from the succession of rebirths. -Pyii. p163 n3: Cf. above, p151/[114]. Cf. Dhs $7, 21: 'application of mind' and 'intention' are described in identical terms. -Ed.} = p.263 Compendium / Summary & Expo of the Topics of Abhidhamma; The Miscellaneous Collection (17) twelve path factors, namely, right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right endeavour, right mindfulness, right concentration, wrong view, wrong thought, wrong endeavour, wrong mindfulness; === that's all! connie #98445 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Mike (and Scott & Connie) - In a message dated 6/13/2009 9:05:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mlnease@... writes: Hi Scott (and Howard and Connie), Hope you'll pardon the intrusion: Scott wrote: > Dear Howard (and connie), > > Regarding: > > H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' > do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' > are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, > and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising > different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not > entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." > > Scott: 'You' and 'I' and 'we' and 'me' are illusion. I think we're talking about 'vaca'. 'You', 'I' 'we' or 'me' can be either samma vaca or miccha vaca, as I understand it, depending on whether it refers to dhammas or to concepts contrary to the Dhamma. > 'Mind stream' is an > illusion, when it is given the self-status it is given above. 'Different > mind streams' is entirely conceptual. As I see it there can be speech that refers to concepts (e.g. Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) that 'point' at dhammas and other speech that doesn't. Those that don't--like 'mind stream'--are, I think, miccha vaca*. > There is no 'you thinking' and no > 'me thinking'. There is no 'difference between you thinking and me > thinking'. When an argument is based on a non-existent entity, as in the > above, that it holds any water is also an illusion. The 'conventional' > is not to be taken literally. I would say that 'you thinking' or 'me thinking' could refer either to Dhamma or adhamma. It could be speech referring to dhammas (as in the Twofold Thought Sutta) or speech referring to concepts that are contrary to the Dhamma. For what it's worth-- ----------------------------------------------- I think it's worth a lot, mike - and I agree with you. --------------------------------------------- mike ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98446 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 6/13/2009 9:59:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "The conventional is to be unpacked into the phenomena that are its basis." Scott: Please unpack the following: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and 'we' do know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' are at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, and there is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different mind streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely illusion. What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." -------------------------------------------- Too much trouble, Scott. If you wish, do it for yourself. -------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98447 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:39 pm Subject: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear friends, ---------------------- Best wishes Lukas #98448 From: han tun Date: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) hantun1 Dear Jessica (Nina, Sarah), Kindly read the following three messages. Message by Nina http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/98365 Message by Han http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/98367 Message by Nina http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/98371 Kind regards, Han #98449 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, I posted Han's very helpful mail to your personal address. There you have our joint efforts in answering. Someyhing wrong with your Email receiving perhaps. Do you read them on the web, or individual Emails? Let us know. Sarah also answered: S: Let me rephrase the first sentence: In the thinking process, many cetasikas (notably vitakka and vicara) assist the citta in experiencing its object, usually a concept or 'thought'. As you say, the citta is always the leader and its function is just 'to know' or experience the object. It is the accompanying cetasikas which mark the object (sa~n~naa), touch and think about the object (vitakka and vicaara), focus on the object (ekaggata), etc. The thought or concept does not arise because it is 'imagined' or 'thought'. It is not a reality. The function of the citta when it is experienced is that - just to experience the object. Just a seeing consciousness only experience visible object and makes no value judgments, does not remember anything about it and so on, so the thinking consciousness just experiences the concept by 'habit', by natural decisive support condition. You might ask why there is the associating of particular visible objects with 'sunrise'. This is mostly due to the accumulated sa~n~naa, again by natural decisive condition, along with vitakka, vicaara and other factors. Hope this helps. NIna and others may add more. Metta, Sarah *If you go to the DSG website, open any message and type in "jessica" in the search space, you'll quickly find the replies to the other questions and maybe other messages addressed to you as well! #98450 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:45 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, We are so used to thinking that we see people, houses and trees. Do we really study with awareness seeing which appears now or visible object which appears now? Do we study again and again the realities which appear one at a time? Only in that way can we find out that no person can appear through the eyes but only visible object, that which is visible. We prefer to think about people and things, we prefer to live in the world of our thoughts instead of studying realities such as seeing or visible object. We have accumulated the tendency to be absorbed in our thoughts about people and things, and thus it is natural that we are inclined to thinking about those things which are not real, which are only concepts or ideas. It is not self who thinks, but a type of nma which arises because of its own conditions. We should not try to push away our thinking but we can begin to notice the difference between the moments we are absorbed in our thoughts and the moments of being aware of one reality at a time, such as visible object or seeing. In this way we can learn the difference between concepts or ideas and realities. Only when we know the difference we can gradually learn how to study realities with awareness and in this way there can be more understanding of them. You have asked me what it means to take something for self, for att . Att or self implies something which stays. Where is the self, does it have a characteristic which can be directly experienced? Is the body the self? The body consists of rpas which arise and then fall away immediately. Is feeling self? Feelings change all the time, they can be happy, unhappy or indifferent. Is thinking self? Thinking changes all the time, thus, how could you identify yourself with thinking? When we learn to be aware of the phenomena which appear through the six doors we will lose interest in things which cannot be directly experienced but which are only objects of speculation. ******* Nina. #98451 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:07 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98418) > =============== > Those factors are: > - 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). > --------------------------------------------- > Well, why would you think I don't accept these as leading to insight > and eventual awakening? Of course they do. > =============== Yes, I did not mean to suggest you did not accept these factors; I was just providing the *specified* conditions that lead to the development of insight. > =============== And these, by the way, ARE > specific practices, despite your having said "Insight knowledge is not a matter > of practising a certain technique, to my understanding." > =============== On this point we differ ;-)). I will explain below how I see it. > =============== > We don't associate with people we can learn from by accident but by > intention - at least I do. > =============== The extent to which we come into contact with "good people" in this lifetime is a matter of kamma/vipaka rather than intentional action on our part. > =============== We don't attend to the Dhamma by accident but > intentionally - at least I do. > =============== The extent to which we hear the teachings explained in a way that is appropriate for us is also a matter of vipaka. Of course, if we appreciate the explanation of the teachings when it is heard, there is likely to be more association with the good person in question, and more hearing of the Dhamma, but it is not something over which we have control. > =============== We don't pay attention to the teachings and to > whatever arises in the moment and its nature by accident, but by intention > and by intentional cultivation of the habit of being aware - at least I do. > =============== The "thorough attention" is kusala consciousness that reflects on what has been heard. This need not be deliberate or intentional in the conventional sense; it may be a purely refelxive kind of thinking. And not all deliberate thinking will be kusala (it could even be accompanied by wrong view). > =============== > And we don't practice the Dhamma in its entirety by accident, but > intentionally - at least I do. And practicing the Dhamma in its entirety is > indispensable. > =========================== I understand the expression "practice of the dhamma" to refer to an arising moment of satipatthana/insight. This certainly is not something that can be deliberately done. It happens by its own conditions. Hoping this explains my perspective. Jon #98452 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:10 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Connie, The whole quote is very useful. It is a pity the translator of the Atth uses for right thinking: right intention and uses the expression right planning. This indeed gives rise to a lot of confusion. Nina. Op 14-jun-2009, om 4:56 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > That which plans rightly, or by which beings plan rightly - this is > right intention. #98453 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/14/2009 3:46:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: You have asked me what it means to take something for “self”, for “attå ”. Attå or self implies something which stays. Where is the self, does it have a characteristic which can be directly experienced? Is the body the self? The body consists of rúpas which arise and then fall away immediately. Is feeling self? Feelings change all the time, they can be happy, unhappy or indifferent. Is thinking self? Thinking changes all the time, thus, how could you identify yourself with thinking? ============================== Exactly so! 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) #98454 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/14/2009 5:08:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (98418) > =============== > Those factors are: > - 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). > --------------------------------------------- > Well, why would you think I don't accept these as leading to insight > and eventual awakening? Of course they do. > =============== Yes, I did not mean to suggest you did not accept these factors; I was just providing the *specified* conditions that lead to the development of insight. > =============== And these, by the way, ARE > specific practices, despite your having said "Insight knowledge is not a matter > of practising a certain technique, to my understanding." > =============== On this point we differ ;-)). I will explain below how I see it. > =============== > We don't associate with people we can learn from by accident but by > intention - at least I do. > =============== The extent to which we come into contact with "good people" in this lifetime is a matter of kamma/vipaka rather than intentional action on our part. ------------------------------------------ First of all it is not a matter only of kamma, and certainly not only of our *own* kamma. Moreover, kamma IS intention and intention IS kamma. ----------------------------------------- > =============== We don't attend to the Dhamma by accident but > intentionally - at least I do. > =============== The extent to which we hear the teachings explained in a way that is appropriate for us is also a matter of vipaka. --------------------------------------------- And vipaka is a matter of kamma, and kamma is intention. --------------------------------------------- Of course, if we appreciate the explanation of the teachings when it is heard, there is likely to be more association with the good person in question, and more hearing of the Dhamma, but it is not something over which we have control. > =============== We don't pay attention to the teachings and to > whatever arises in the moment and its nature by accident, but by intention > and by intentional cultivation of the habit of being aware - at least I do. > =============== The "thorough attention" is kusala consciousness that reflects on what has been heard. This need not be deliberate or intentional in the conventional sense; it may be a purely refelxive kind of thinking. ---------------------------------------- Here you are quite correct. It MAY be a matter of deliberate intention - conscious and "planned," but more often it is subliminal and semi-automatic. --------------------------------------- And not all deliberate thinking will be kusala (it could even be accompanied by wrong view). > =============== > And we don't practice the Dhamma in its entirety by accident, but > intentionally - at least I do. And practicing the Dhamma in its entirety is > indispensable. > =========================== I understand the expression "practice of the dhamma" to refer to an arising moment of satipatthana/insight. --------------------------------------------- Yes, I know. You have a predilection to "funny speak." ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- This certainly is not something that can be deliberately done. ---------------------------------------------- When you define something in a manner that guarantees a certain result (such as deliberative activity with regard to it being impossible), that result certainly will then pertain to the phenomenon so defined. I simply think that your definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't define the practice urged by the Buddha, which was a matter of actual choice. Some followers DID choose to seek out "roots of trees," and some did not. ---------------------------------------------- It happens by its own conditions. -------------------------------------------- It doesn't HAVE conditions that may just happen to occur. Rather, the conditions are created largely by human intention and intentional actions. It is these that direct our lives for the most part. An unbiased reading of the suttas displays that again and again and again. But, Jon, of course I'm not writing this to persuade you. It seems that your mind is made up, and you will not see the plain words of the suttas no matter how often they are repeated. You see more deeply, it seems you think, whereas I think that you see what you wish to believe, not considering that you might be mistaken. I'm writing this for others who might be more willing to look and see, putting aside their beliefs. ---------------------------------------------- Hoping this explains my perspective. ----------------------------------------------- :-) I DO understand it. ---------------------------------------------- Jon =========================== With metta, Howard /"A fool is characterized by his/her actions. A wise person is characterized by his/her actions. It's through the activities of one's life that one's discernment shines. "A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a fool. Which three? Bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct... "A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a wise person. Which three? Good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct... "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will avoid the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a fool. We will undertake & maintain the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a wise person.' That's how you should train yourselves."/ — _AN 3.2_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.002.than.html) #98455 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:02 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and Jon), Regarding: N: "You have asked me what it means to take something for “self”, for attaa . Attaa or self implies something which stays. Where is the self, does it have a characteristic which can be directly experienced? Is the body the self? The body consists of rúpas which arise and then fall away immediately. Is feeling self? Feelings change all the time, they can be happy, unhappy or indifferent. Is thinking self? Thinking changes all the time, thus, how could you identify yourself with thinking?" You say: H: "Exactly so!" And then in another place you say this: H: "...It doesn't HAVE conditions that may just happen to occur. Rather, the conditions are created largely by human intention and intentional actions. It is these that direct our lives for the most part. An unbiased reading of the suttas displays that again and again and again.." Scott: Which is it? What is 'human intention?' Sincerely, Scott. #98456 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-jun-2009, om 2:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and > 'we' do > know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' > are > at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, > and there > is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different > mind > streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely > illusion. > What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." ------- N: The different kinds of thinking in the case of different individuals are also mentioned in the quote Lukas gave of Survey: But we are also reminded of this: The thinking of this or that person has already fallen away when we observe these different ways of thinking. And even our observing falls away immediately. No person is there. Life is only one moment of experiencing an object. Nina. #98457 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:52 am Subject: Are 'not-self' vs are not 'self' (was, [dsg] Re: effort.) scottduncan2 Dear Jon (and Howard), Regarding: J: "I think the inverted commas here indicate a literal translation, rather than an emphasis of meaning. The commentary (quoted by Sarah, set out again at the end of this message) seems to be saying that just awareness and understanding of dhammas is being referred to. What do you think?" Scott: Yes, I think it does seem to be a 'literal' translation. When 'you' are not in or between anything this does seem to more than infer that it is just awareness and understanding of dhammaa. I take it to mean that 'you' is *never* in or between anything, despite what it seems to be. This means that any one who asserts an understanding of anatta on the one hand and holds to a belief in which a human can intend is talking out of both sides of his or her mouth. This may or may not refer to Howard at this time, but this sort of view has been given repeatedly. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #98458 From: "jessicamui" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:39 am Subject: Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear Nina, Han and Sarah, Thank you very much for answering my questions. I went away for a few days, and when I came back, I tried to check the thread following the same title, but couldn't find any answers. so I re-posted. I apologize for overlooking the postings. Now I have the following related questions: Sarah also answered: > The thought or concept does not arise because it is 'imagined' or > 'thought'. It is not a reality. J: then what conditions the concept to arise ? It arises as a mental object, independent of any citta ? It is not any one part of the 5 aggregates ? We know that thoughts and concepts are mental formations, it is difficult to think that they don't belong to the nama group. I remember that when we met with Sujin in Bangkok, everyone (seemed) to agree that "concept" is an unconditional dhamma. I really couldn't understand this. Concepts are mind-made. They are conditioned by the mind directly. If there is no mind, there is no concept. Then why it is not conditioned ? It also arise and pass away. For example, the contents of the thoughts changes moment by moment. Even the nimitta used by the jhana mind "has to" arise and pass away because all the surrounding elements/conditions/building blocks (nama & rupa) are arising and passing constantly. Regarding the arising of all supermundane path factors arise at the moment of lokuttara citta arises, according to my understanding of Nina's reply, they are NOT supermundane cetasikas, they are mundane cetasikas arising with the lokuttara citta. By the ways, is there any lokuttara cetasika according to Abdhidhamma ? When an Arahat enters parinibbana, his/her 5 aggregates comes to distinctive ? There is not more citta, supermundane or not ? Thanks a lot for your help ! With Much metta, Jessica. #98459 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, I just take one part from your letter. Op 14-jun-2009, om 17:39 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > Regarding the arising of all supermundane path factors arise at the > moment of lokuttara citta arises, according to my understanding of > Nina's reply, they are NOT supermundane cetasikas, they are mundane > cetasikas arising with the lokuttara citta. ------ N: No, this is not so. The Pathfactors are cetasikas and when they accompany lokuttara citta they have to be lokuttara as well. Citta and cetasikas that arise together are of the same jaati. Jaati means class or nature of citta. There are four jaatis: kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. For instance, when we speak about vipaakacitta it is implied that the accompanying cetasikas are also vipaaka. ------- J: By the ways, is there any lokuttara cetasika according to Abdhidhamma ? ------ N: See above. Lokuttara citta is accompanied by the cetasikas that are the Path factors and also by the universals, by pakinnakas (cetasikas that do not accompany each citta but many, of the four jaatis), by many other sobhana cetasikas. All of them are lokuttara at that moment. At that moment, that is, during the moment they accompany lokuttara citta. ------ Nina. #98460 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:51 am Subject: Re: Pakatpanissaya: abykata -> abykata/kusala/akusala; paatti szmicio Dear Alberto, Those reminders are very good. I hope you will continue this series. That is very beneficial that we have occasion to hear Dhamma in the right way. In detailed way. We all think about understanding, but without hearing Dhamma in the right way it cannot grow. My best wishes Lukas > Patthna > ... > 2. Concise exposition of conditions > > Strong dependence condition > - Kusala dhammas [arisen] (much) earlier are condition, as strong dependence condition, for kusala / for some akusala / for abykata dhammas [arising] (much) later. > snip #98387 #98461 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard, I answered but reflected somewhat more. I want to add something. Op 14-jun-2009, om 2:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > H: "Well, forget about the 'we' part, but thinking does go on, and > 'we' do > know it when there is thinking. So, as regards the 'we', while 'we' > are > at it: There IS a difference between you thinking and me thinking, > and there > is no confusing of these. The mental phenomena comprising different > mind > streams are distinguishable. So, 'you' and 'I' are not entirely > illusion. > What IS illusion is what 'we' make of these." ------- N: former answer: The thinking of this or that person has already fallen away when we observe these different ways of thinking. And even our observing falls away immediately. No person is there. Life is only one moment of experiencing an object. --------- N: I want to add that what is there in that one moment is very little, hardly anything, and very ephemeral. I myself have to consider this more and more to really take this in. It helps me to cling less to the idea that there is a person. Nina. #98462 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Nina and Howard > > snip #98461 > --------- > N: I want to add that what is there in that one moment is very > little, hardly anything, and very ephemeral. I myself have to > consider this more and more to really take this in. It helps me to > cling less to the idea that there is a person. > L: Yes, hearing about citta cetasika and ruupa is very beneficial. We can teach slowly in our life that there is no Self, but just elements(dhatus). My best wishes Lukas #98463 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now szmicio > L: Yes, hearing about citta cetasika and ruupa is very beneficial. We can teach slowly in our life that there is no Self, but just elements(dhatus). L: Actually, learn slowly :> #98464 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - snip #98461 --------- N: I want to add that what is there in that one moment is very little, hardly anything, and very ephemeral. ----------------------------------------- Quite so, and inseparable (though distinguishable) from what went before and what co-occurs, and so, nothing in-and-of-itself. Yet the little nothings of one mind stream, while interacting with those of others - mutually reflecting, so to speak, are distinguishable nonetheless from those others. Your kamma is not mine. Your experiences (of sights, sounds, tastes etc) are not mine. The streams of experience are distinguishable, and it is in that sense, and ONLY that sense, that there is a "you" distinguishable from "me. That said, I strongly agree with you that seeing the near-nothingness and ephemeral nature of all phenomena, indeed helps one, as you say next, to let go of reifying those phenomena into apparently self-existent, separate entities, and reifying the heap of them into an imagined existent we call "a person." In fact, for me, seeing anicca as I do, as a radical non-remaining of anything for any time at all, leads me to seeing only an ungraspable emptiness. So, I find the sense of anicca leading to a sense of anatta. I "pray" at times that this seeing should intensify to the extent that relinquishment of everything is the natural response. The aim of the Dhamma isn't that of achieving something but of relinquishing everything - a peaceful letting go that I think could only be described by a sigh of relief. -------------------------------------------- I myself have to consider this more and more to really take this in. It helps me to cling less to the idea that there is a person. Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #98465 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, I have to add something. I just take one part from your letter. Op 14-jun-2009, om 17:39 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > Regarding the arising of all supermundane path factors arise at the > moment of lokuttara citta arises, according to my understanding of > Nina's reply, they are NOT supermundane cetasikas, they are mundane > cetasikas arising with the lokuttara citta. ------ N: See above. Lokuttara citta is accompanied by the cetasikas that are the Path factors and also by the universals, by pakinnakas (cetasikas that do not accompany each citta but many, of the four jaatis), by many other sobhana cetasikas. All of them are lokuttara at that moment. At that moment, that is, during the moment they accompany lokuttara citta. ----- N: I should add that the citta and accompanying cetasikas arise together at the same physical base, experience the same object and fall away together. Thus, when they are lokuttara the object that they experience is nibbaana. ------ Nina. #98466 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Mike & all, > > --- On Tue, 9/6/09, m_nease > wrote: > > > S: As Ken H said, I think that (as usual in the suttas) concepts are > > used which point to realities. Mother, father etc are used here to > > counteract the wrong views mentioned (as taken from an earlier message): > > > > < "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, > > < nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no > > > this > > > world or other world; NO MOTHER OR FATHER; NO BEINGS who are reborn > > > spontaneously; no good and virtuous INDIVIDUALS in the world who have > > > realised for themSELVES by direct knowledge and declare this world and > > > the other world.' THIS IS WRONG VIEW.> > > M:> Yes, I've read all that, many times actually. This is one of my > favorites. > > >Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > themselves.. ." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. > .... > S: It refers to the right understanding about the attainment of > arahatship, Buddhahood and nibbana, the right understanding that full > enlightenment (the lokuttara cittas of the arahat) has occurred and that > the eradication of defilements is possible through the growth of wisdom. > In other words it refers to the confidence (which comes with the growth > of right understanding) in the Triple Gem - through the full > understanding of namas and rupas, the 'All', as anicca, dukkha and anatta. > **** > This is what I wrote before on the quote above about 'No > mother.....wrong view', when I had access to some commentary notes: > > >S: This is the serious wrong view of annihilation and this passage is > repeated in many suttas. > > In MN 41, Nanamoli/Bodhi give the following summary explanation to the > same quote in note 425: > > "This is a morally nihilistic materialist view that denies an afterlife > and kammic retribution. "There is nothing given" means that there is no > fruit of giving; "no this world, no other world" that there is no rebirth > into either this world or a world beyond; "no mother, no father" that > there is no fruit of good conduct and bad conduct towards mother and > father. The statement about recluses and brahmins denies the existence of > Buddhas and arahants." > > A lot more is said about this under "The Doctrine of Ajita Kesakambala" in > the Saamma~n~naphala Sutta and its commentary. For example, in B.Bodhi's > translation of these (BPS wheel), it says: > > "Cy. By denying kamma one denies its result [because there is no result > when there is no kamma]. By denying the result one denies kamma [because > when there is no result, kamma becomes inefficacious]. Thus all these > thinkers [S: inc. Ajita], by denying both (kamma and its results), in > effect espouse acausalims (ahetukavaada), the inefficacy of action > (akiriyavaada), and moreal nihilism (natthikavaada)." > > Also more on this quote in these two messages. The second one is Nina's > from the Sangiiti Corner. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/84298 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/89956 > > > Does it still seem very conceptual? I'm reminded about the references to > people even in the Abhidhamma texts when discussing paramattha dhammas. > For example, I had a discussion before with Han & Tep about the > designations of people in the Puggalapa~n~natti, the Abhidhamma text: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76748 > > > >S:...the text (Puggala-Pa~n~natti) introduces 'puggala-pa~n~natti' > with: > > "In what ways is there a designation of human types? > 1- Grouping of Human Types by One. > > "(1) One who is emancipated in season (samayavimutto) > (2) One who is emancipated out of season (asamayavimutto) > (3) One of perturbable nature.(kuppadhammo) > (4) One of imperturbably nature.(akuppadhammo) > (5) One liable to fall away (gotrabhuu)......" > > So, in reality, are these people or cittas? I think this is a false dilemma (no offense)--the question should be, 'are these pa~n~nattis or are they dhammas?'. As I see it, in the 'suttanta method', they're pa~n~nattis. In the 'abhidhamma method', they're dhammas. The pa~n~nattis are, in my opinion, meant to inspire confidence and attention to concepts that will--conditions allowing--lead to insight into dhammas. > I'd suggest (with the help of the notes)these refer to: > (1) The path cittas of the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, i.e to > sotapatti-magga citta and so on. > (2) The path cittas of the sukkhavipassaka-khii.naasavas (Arahants who do > not practise Jhaana - comy) > (3) The cittas of the putthujana,sotapanna and sakadagami having attained > the 8 samaapattis (absorptions/jhanas) > (4) The cittas of the anagami or arahant having attained the 8 samaapatis. > (5) The citta which is succeeded by the ariyan magga citta, referring > here, 'According to the Commentary....to a person who has reached the > family, circle, or designation of Ariyas....'. Again, this is referring in > an absolute sense to a series of cittas only. Of course. > In other words, all sammuti sacca using various pa~n~natti, but always to > designate and point again to absolute realities. Not always to designate or to point, as I see it--often to inspire, exhort, explain, encourage, discourage and so on. > S: Anyway, Mike, I know you've read all this before. That's true. Thanks for taking the trouble to repost it. > I'll be glad to > hear any further comments you have. Same to you, Sarah, though I doubt there's really any point. Maybe we should just drop it here. mike #98467 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Azita (and Nina), gazita2002 wrote: > hallo Mike and Nina, > > N: why not leave out conceptual? Just right view of different levels. Because I think that the conceptual level of the teachings is indispensable. I don't like the expression 'conceptual right view' either, even though I've used it. However, as I read the Great Forty (among others) the Buddha spoke about a 'right view' in terms of pa~n~nattis that did not refer either directly to present dhammas or the factors of mundane or supramundane right view. That's my point. Of course I may be wrong, but obviously I don't think so. > azita; I like this, right view of different levels. Weak at first and > growing with ea moment of knowing a reality. > > Mike, as far as I am concerned, we can discuss the buddha's teachings on > the conceptual level endlessly, and we do!!! > However, for the development of wisdom and understanding and finally the > eradication of wrong view, I think I prefer to hear about the realities > that are the truth 'underlying' the sea of concepts. Your prerogative, of course! > Not only did the Buddha teach about oral hygiene, but also modern day > dentists, however we both know who knew the absolute truth behind such a > concept. I'm glad you acknowledge that the Buddha taught about oral hygiene. > > Your discussions started about the rules of the monks that refer to > > situations of daily life, like using tooth sticks. The monks did not > > need to be reminded that life is naama and ruupa, it was understood. By a few, certainly. You don't need to read many vinaya texts though, to know that a great many monks had very little understanding even of the most conventional common sense. > > At the same time they led their daily lives, like we now. Both monks > > and laypeople have to be careful in matters of health lest they > > become sick. Thinking 'there is no tooth, no toothstick' does not > > have to occur all the time. It does not mean that they have to throw > > away all tooth sticks or not take care of their teeth. From examples > > like this we can see that satipa.t.thaana should be very natural. I don't see that that follows at all--no offense. And all akusala is also 'very natural'. I see nothing particularly nice about 'natural'. > azita: good reminders, Nina, satipatthaana being very natural, I think > we forget this and think we can do something for sati to arise, but it > must be as natural as seeing, hearing. I suppose that some of 'us' do--all perfectly natural. What satipa.t.thaana 'must be' is well detailed in the texts, I think. When the conditions for it are present (have accumulated sufficiently, I think it's safe to say) it will occur and of course when they aren't it won't. mike #98468 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott, Scott wrote: > Dear Mike, > > Regarding: > > M: "I think we're talking about 'vaca'. 'You', 'I' 'we' or 'me' can be > either samma vaca or miccha vaca, as I understand it, depending on > whether it refers to dhammas or to concepts contrary to the Dhamma." > > Scott: Very true. In examining views, such as those expressed by Howard, > I can't help recalling that these are always given with the oft-stated > underlying notion that it is possible to 'intentionally practise'. With > this in mind, I read where words and phrases which might look as if they > are samma-vaacaa are actually miccha-vaacaa because they come from a > view which considers it valid that a being practises intentionally. > Since this is not at all the case, I consider any use of these phrases > in these cases to be misleading. > > I agree. It depends on whether it refers to dhammaa or pa~n~natti > contrary to the Dhamma, and a being who practises and can cause to arise > certain dhammaa by such intending is not Dhamma. > > M: "As I see it there can be speech that refers to concepts (e.g. > Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) that 'point' at dhammas and other speech that > doesn't. Those that don't--like 'mind stream'--are, I think, miccha vaca*." > > Scott: Yes. Again true. Mind-stream, considered properly, is just a > manner of speech - not a real thing. > > M: "I would say that 'you thinking' or 'me thinking' could refer either > to Dhamma or adhamma. It could be speech referring to dhammas (as in the > Twofold Thought Sutta) or speech referring to concepts that are contrary > to the Dhamma. > > Scott: When there is talk about someone who knows that there is someone > else who is thinking and that these thoughts mean that there are two > thinkers and that this must be self-evident, I consider this all to be > conceptual and contrary to the Dhamma. Agreed. > I wonder if there is ever a time when citta can experience citta arising > 'elsewhere' as an object? There is the supernormal jhaana attainment > that is sort of like that isn't there? I wonder what its object actually is? By my reading (as I recall it) it is the actual 'other person's' citta (or its nimitta more properly, I think). I'm not much interested in the abhi~n~nas, though. It does seem to me that, given the incredible difficulty of finding the right conditions for the cultivation even of ordinary jhaana--even in Buddhaghosa's time (according to the texts)--the idea that modern laypeople could be achieving them at home (or on "retreats") in their spare time seems very far-fetched to me, to say the least. By the way, though--I see nothing wrong with 'deliberate practice' per se. As a matter of fact, every time the Buddha said, "...thus you should train..." (sorry, I don't have the Paali at hand) he was encouraging what could surely be called deliberate and even systematic practice (in conventional terms), often but not always of samatha/jhaana bhaavanaa. The texts make it clear that such practices were common in the monasteries of the day, often with the Buddha present and even participating. (That said, I do think that the undertaking by modern amateurs of 'deliberate [or systematic] practices' is usually ill-advised at best). By my reading, these practices had a fairly wide range of goals (other than satipa.t.thaana, by my reading). So the problem isn't with 'deliberate practice' per se (which, in the context of "...thus you should train yourselves..."), obviously refers to the cultivation of various wholesome or beautiful factors--and other results--) but rather with 'deliberate pracitce' accompanied by the counterfeits of these factors. So it seems to me, anyway. mike #98469 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Mike (& Azita), > > --- On Tue, 9/6/09, m. nease > wrote: > > >> azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? > > M:>Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- > > >>A: For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > > 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed > > panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self > > and therefore dukkha. > > M:>OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have > achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think > nibbaana too. > Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't beings > pa.n.natti?. > <...> > >Does this interpretation mean to you that, when the Buddha talks about > a tooth stick, he is speaking a kind of code for abhidhamma-- the > elements, let's say, that are usually taken for a tooth stick? > ... > S: Yes, just like the butter-jar in the following: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75961 > I don't read the commentary to the first chapter of the Kathavatthu (the 5th of the 7 Abhidhamma Pitaka texts) cited above as saying that the 'popular discourse' is a kind of code for 'highest-meaning discourse', only that they are completely consistent (and of course that the Buddha knew that the designations referred to underlying dhammas). I certainly don't dispute this. Of course I'm also very familiar with the Po.t.thapaada Sutta ("Dialogues, i 263"?) and certainly understand and appreciate that too. It is completely obvious to me (theoretically of course) that when the Buddha spoke in terms of designations and concepts, he was perfectly aware of the real phenomena underlying them. The subject at hand though is not the nature of the underlying dhammas; it's the practical value of using the tooth stick, with the intention of encouraging its use. In other words, in this particular discourse (as in so many others in the 'popular discourses') the intention was not to direct his audience's attention to present dhammas but rather to encourage a particular activity (or restraint), as I see it. > >S:In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the > Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there > is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from > the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41) <....>: > ***** > QUOTE > Without self means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: > even in one and the same quality, there is no person. Thus the meaning > should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this > connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. > > ".....Even in such expressions as there is the person who works for his > own good(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is > no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific > and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to > say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, > convention, expression, is meant: there is the person. This is the sense > here. > > "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: These, Citta, are merely > names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the > world. (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference > to bodily and mental aggregates the term person is used to denote a > popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. > > "The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the > philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and > so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, > ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application > of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on > highest meaning. > > "Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a > person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its > meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, > HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, > a man, a deva or a brahma. > > "He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about > impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its > meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, > him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so > forth. > > "Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, > even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on > popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning > discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one > who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. On the other hand, > having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him > popular discourse afterwards. > > "Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore > the Buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the > highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently > and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And > highest-meaning discourse, too. they teach consistently and in conformity > with truth according to the method selected. > > Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of > truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got > at (i.e. known). > > Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world > convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as > such, characteristic of things (as they are). > > There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of > two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and > so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of butter-jar, and so > forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on > the mere expression there is the person who, must not command adherence. > The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without > transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in > explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. > > The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. > > The controversy on person is ended. < I hope you don't imagine that I disagree with any of the above or that I'm suggesting the existence of a 'person'. I'm not. > M:>....Is it your > view that this entire stratum of his teachings was and is nothing more > than a sort of coded (esoteric?) reference to naama and ruupa? > ... > S: Yes, but we have to use ordinary language. People vary in how they > find the truth palatable as the quote above indicates. As Alberto > suggested, for some it may be helpful to have daily life examples, for > others it's a condition to cling all the more to beings, selves and > butter-jars. I also appreciated and agree with Alberto's comments. That isn't to say, though, that I believe that every word the Buddha ever spoke was meant to direct his audience's attention to real (so necessarily present) phenomena. I don't believe that that was the case. Sorry I didn't make this point more clearly in the first place. Thanks for your patience. mike #98470 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:26 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ----- <. . .> S: > Yes, well....as you were saying about solidity and extension as synonyms, some points we need to leave aside. I read this half a dozen times (and Jon a couple), and neither of us were the wiser.... ------ I've looked again, and it seems perfectly clear to me. But then I am a bit odd. :-) As it turns out (having read Mike's follow-up post) my translation of "No attasanna no foul," was off the mark. Perfectly clear, but off the mark! :-) You may remember from former conversations that I am never confident about understanding the written word. Take, for example, the quote you have given here: ----- S: > "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world." (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term `person' is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense." ------ Having been taught about 'concepts and realities' I can understand the sutta quote well enough, but the second (commentary) part leaves me scratching my head. BTW, apologies for my silence in recent days. There are heaps of replies in my drafts folder, but none seem to be making it to the list. Blame it on conditions and accumulations.:-) Ken H #98471 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking philofillet Hi Mike, Nina, Azita and all > > > N: why not leave out conceptual? Just right view of different levels. > > Because I think that the conceptual level of the teachings is indispensable. I don't like the expression 'conceptual right view' either, even > though I've used it. However, as I read the Great Forty (among others) the Buddha spoke about a 'right view' in terms of pa~n~nattis that did > not refer either directly to present dhammas or the factors of mundane or supramundane right view. That's my point. Of course I may be wrong, > but obviously I don't think so. Ph: Sorry for butting in again, but may I suggest that it would be helpful to consider those suttas in which the Buddha withheld the deep teaching "particular to the Buddha (Buddhas?)" until he knew that the listener was ready? I made an unsuccesful attempt to round up those suttas a while back, but I recall there was one where the Buddha taught a leper on the roadside and started with some topics that were not "particular to the Buddha." I can't recall offhand how the sutta describe those topics (generosity? result of deeds?) but I am pretty sure that for your current discussion it would be good to consider those topics and why it is said that the Buddha emphasized them until he knew that the listener was ready for the deep paramattha Dhamma. We don't have the Buddha with us to tell us when we're ready, but I think those suttas should help do away with the dismissal and even belittlement (e.g suggestions that one try Christianity instead) of the kind of conventional teachings that were included in the Buddha's teaching to people of limited understanding. It is good and necessary to familiarize oneself with the theory of the deep teaching, but to make such teachings the core of one's practice seems to me to go against the way the Buddha himself offered the Dhamma to listeners. It feels like a kind of appropriation of those deep teachings. I can't seem to post without editorializing. Sorry. This will be my last post until I am ready to discuss properly, I still believe that will happen someday, I really do. My troll days will be long behind me someday... Anyways, please have a look at those suttas, if you can find them. I think you'll find them very relevant to this discussion. Metta, Phil #98472 From: "jessicamui" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear Nina, Thank you for pointing out the jaati nature of the cetasikas. When I checked the table of cetasikas in Abdhidhamma, unlike the list of cittas, it doesn't have the list of supermundane cetasikas. Thank you for the clarification. N: No, this is not so. The Pathfactors are cetasikas and when they accompany lokuttara citta they have to be lokuttara as well. Citta and cetasikas that arise together are of the same jaati. Jaati means class or nature of citta. There are four jaatis: kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. With Much Metta, Jessica. #98473 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:59 pm Subject: The Mental Bath! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: The Internal Bath that opens into Prime Divinity! Buddha once said to Nandaka, the Licchavi minister . Nandaka, a Noble Disciple who possesses four things is a Stream-Enterer , who is no longer bound to the lower world, who is fixed in destiny, who has won enlightenment as his assured future destination. What four things? Nandaka, any Noble Disciple has unshakable Faith in the Three Jewels thus: 1: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha indeed! ... 2: Perfectly formulated is the Dhamma, visible right here & now, immediate ... 3: Perfectly training is this Noble Sangha of the Buddha's Noble disciples... 4: A Noble possesses Morality esteemed by the Noble Ones: Unbroken, pure... Any Noble Disciple, who is endowed with these 4 things is a Stream-Enterer , no longer bound to the painful worlds, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his certain future destination. Furthermore, Nandaka, a Noble Disciple who possesses these four things gains a very long life, whether Divine or human! He becomes endowed with exquisite bodily beauty, whether Divine or human! He becomes endowed with a content happiness, whether Divine or human! He becomes endowed with honour and fame, whether Divine or human! He becomes endowed with a sovereign power, whether Divine or human! I explain this to you, Nandaka, not having heard it from any recluse or priest! Rather, I tell you just what I have known, seen, & understood directly myself! When this was said, a man said to Nandaka, the minister of the Licchavis : "It is time for your bath, Sir." Who promptly responded: Enough now, I say, with that fake external bath... This internal bath will suffice, namely, firm confirmed, confident conviction in this Blessed One... <...> Have a nice noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Mental Bath! #98474 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:55 pm Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Even though we may not expressively think, It is I , we are likely to be confused about realities. So long as right understanding has not been developed we join different realities together into a mass, a whole. For example, we do not distinguish the characteristic of sound from the characteristic of hearing, and thus our knowledge of them is still vague. We do not distinguish hearing from thinking about what we heard, or from like and dislike. When understanding has not been developed yet we are also confused as to the different doorways through which objects are experienced. For example, hearing experiences sound through the ear-door and thinking about what was heard experiences its object through the mind-door. You asked me what the difference is between seeing a rose and seeing its colour. There is seeing time and again but there is no right understanding of it. We do not realize the characteristics of phenomena as they appear one at a time through the different doorways. The nma which sees only experiences visible object or colour through the eye-door. When we recognize an object such as a rose there is not seeing. The object is not colour but a concept or idea we form up by thinking. The thinking of the concept rose is conditioned by seeing but seeing and thinking arise at different moments. There is the experience of colour and there is thinking of the concept rose, and then colour impinges again on the eye-door and there is seeing again. How fast cittas change, how fast objects change! In which world do we mostly live? Do we know the six worlds appearing through the six doors or do we live only in the world of conventional truth? Is it wisdom to know only one world? Should we not know the worlds appearing through the six doors by being aware of different characteristics? In that way the self can gradually be broken up into elements until there is nothing left of it. ******* Nina. #98475 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:02 pm Subject: Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear friends, Today, very short. Chapter 7 continues: ----------------- Best wishes Lukas #98476 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Nina Regarding Survey, Chapter 7, that I am posting now. Should I post it orginally, part by part or maybe omit some speculative passages? Could you give me any sugestions? What's more convenient to you? Best wishes Lukas > N: The different kinds of thinking in the case of different > individuals are also mentioned in the quote Lukas gave of Survey: > > about him, but the world of each one of them will evolve with loving > kindness or with aversion, depending on the power of the citta which > has accumulated different inclinations in the case of each person.> > > But we are also reminded of this: > > if there are many people living together in this world, at a certain > time and in a particular location. However, if there is clear > comprehension of the characteristic of the element which experiences, > the dhamma which arises and sees the object which appears at that > moment, one will know that, while there is seeing just for a short > moment, there is only the world of seeing. Then there are no people, > other living beings or different things. At the moment of seeing > there is not yet thinking about shape and form, there is not yet > thinking of a story about what is seen. > When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different > things, we should know that this is only a moment of citta which > thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object.> > > The thinking of this or that person has already fallen away when we > observe these different ways of thinking. And even our observing > falls away immediately. No person is there. Life is only one moment > of experiencing an object. > Nina. #98477 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 15-jun-2009, om 8:12 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Regarding Survey, Chapter 7, that I am posting now. > Should I post it orginally, part by part or maybe omit some > speculative passages? > Could you give me any sugestions? What's more convenient to you? ------ N: No special suggestions, anything that you like you can post. It is good to make the quotes short, otherwise people find it too much to read. People may skip long posts. And you can add your own observations to the quotes, that makes it interesting. Nina. #98478 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:09 am Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear Nina > N: No special suggestions, anything that you like you can post. It is > good to make the quotes short, otherwise people find it too much to > read. People may skip long posts. And you can add your own > observations to the quotes, that makes it interesting. L: But maybe it is to much subjective, if i make my comments? Best wishes Lukas #98479 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 15-jun-2009, om 11:09 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: But maybe it is to much subjective, if i make my comments? ------ N: We all are subjective, but that makes this forum so interesting! I like to hear your comments. They are good reminders. Nina. #98480 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, answering your other questions, apart from lokuttara cetasikas, Op 14-jun-2009, om 17:39 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > Sarah also answered: > > The thought or concept does not arise because it is 'imagined' or > > 'thought'. It is not a reality. > > J: then what conditions the concept to arise ? It arises as a > mental object, independent of any citta ? ------ N: The citta which thinks of a concept is real and it arises. The concept is not an ultimate reality; it does not arise, it is merely an object citta thinks of. Citta can think of realities and also of that which is not a reality. ---------- > J: It is not any one part of the 5 aggregates ? We know that > thoughts and concepts are mental formations, it is difficult to > think that they don't belong to the nama group. -------- N: No, only realities are included in the five khandhas. Concepts are not among the mental formations, sa"nkhaarakkhandha. The word 'thought' may be misleading. It can be used in the sense of pa~n~natti, concept, or in the sense of thinking, vitakka which is a reality. The Pali is very useful in this respect. -------- > > J: I remember that when we met with Sujin in Bangkok, everyone > (seemed) to agree that "concept" is an unconditional dhamma. -------- N: I quote from 'Topics of Abhidhamma' (Abhidhammattha Sangaha and Commentary): I think that there was reference to this fact. It cannot be said of nibbaana and of concepts that they arise and fall away. Nibbaana is a reality whereas concept is not but both are timefreed. ---------- > J: I really couldn't understand this. Concepts are mind-made. They > are conditioned by the mind directly. If there is no mind, there is > no concept. Then why it is not conditioned ? ------ N: In a way one can say that concepts are mind-made, in as far as they are objects of thinking, but they are different from naama and ruupa which arise and fall away all the time. Citta, cetasika and ruupa arise each of their own specific conditions, and there are several conditions for their arising, more than one. It is useful to learn more about the different classes of conditions, this will help us to see that we cannot speak of conditions in the case of a concept. A concept is not produced by kamma, it is not caused by a hetu, it is not conditioned by contiguity-condition, etc. The concept itself can be a condition for citta, by way of object-condition. ------- > J: It also arise and pass away. For example, the contents of the > thoughts changes moment by moment. Even the nimitta used by the > jhana mind "has to" arise and pass away because all the surrounding > elements/conditions/building blocks (nama & rupa) are arising and > passing constantly. ------- N: The citta that thinks arises and falls away, not the concept itself citta thinks of. For example you think of a rose. Do you find that the rose arises and falls away? It seems that it stays or that it was already there. Think of a specific person. Does it not seem that the person is alive, already there? Also the nimitta used in jhaana, such as the kasina, it seems that it is already there. Not the rupas it is made of, but the image of the kasina is the subject of meditation. ------ > > J: When an Arahat enters parinibbana, his/her 5 aggregates comes to > distinctive ? There is not more citta, supermundane or not ? ------- N: After the parinibbana of the arahat, when he has passed away, there is no more arising of the five khandhas, no more rebirth. No more citta, cetasika and rupa. Citta, cetasika and rupa are dukkha, they arise and fall away. For him there is the end to dukkha. Nina. #98481 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > . . . >> By the way, though--I see nothing wrong with 'deliberate practice' per se. As a matter of fact, every time the Buddha said, "...thus you should train..." (sorry, I don't have the Paali at hand) he was encouraging what could surely be called deliberate and even systematic practice (in conventional terms), often but not always of samatha/jhaana bhaavanaa. The texts make it clear that such practices were common in the monasteries of the day, often with the Buddha present and even participating. -------------- Hi Mike (and Scott), You and I often say here that life, in reality, lasts for only one moment. How could that understanding conform with the understanding of a deliberate practice (including a practice of cleaning the teeth) that lasted for several moments? Can't there be only one or the other? I believe the Buddha's references to responsible, sensible, daily life activities were to answer the perennial question "Given that there is only the present moment, in what way are we to understand "walking" "eating" "dressing" "teeth-cleaning" and so on?" Ken H #98482 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "By my reading (as I recall it) it is the actual 'other person's' citta (or its nimitta more properly, I think). I'm not much interested in the abhi~n~nas, though. It does seem to me that, given the incredible difficulty of finding the right conditions for the cultivation even of ordinary jhaana--even in Buddhaghosa's time (according to the texts)--the idea that modern laypeople could be achieving them at home (or on 'retreats') in their spare time seems very far-fetched to me, to say the least." Scott: Agreed to the above. I think I suggested this particular abhi~n~na to note, in deference to Howard, that technically it is possible for citta (internal) to have citta - or its nimitta (external) as object. The details might be interesting and bear on his particular argument in a sense, although not in support of his main point of there being a person out there. M: "By the way, though--I see nothing wrong with 'deliberate practice' per se. As a matter of fact, every time the Buddha said, '...thus you should train...' he was encouraging what could surely be called deliberate and even systematic practice (in conventional terms), often but not always of samatha/jhaana bhaavanaa....By my reading, these practices had a fairly wide range of goals (other than satipa.t.thaana, by my reading). So the problem isn't with 'deliberate practice' per se (which, in the context of '...thus you should train yourselves...'), obviously refers to the cultivation of various wholesome or beautiful factors--and other results--) but rather with 'deliberate practice' accompanied by the counterfeits of these factors. So it seems to me, anyway." Scott: I'd be interested to read the way in which you would differentiate 'deliberate practise' and 'counterfeit deliberate practise'. Yes, I suppose that we are referring to dhammaa, and to the tendency to take akusala for kusala when satipa.t.thana is not well developed, but I think we can say more than simply repeat the mantra that it is just by conditions and leave it at that. I'd say that it is the dhamma which makes or breaks it. If mettaa arises and kindness ensues then its mettaa. If something else arises and is mistaken for mettaa and something looking like kindness ensues, then its another story. For the sake of discussion, I'm prone to take as a fundamental basis for any consideration of these things the premise that nothing is done by a self since there is no self. I find this removes complication and avoids the sophistic traps common to other views. With this basic premise, I proceed to consider that whatever is being 'experienced' or 'done' is simply due to the complex interplay of conditions - as the mantra affirms. But what might 'deliberate practise' look like? I'll offer an example for your consideration (if you have a better one, please offer it, since this one might be a bit lame): I get up early to study. I'm tired some days, and before I can get to the tasks I set out for myself, I have cats and a dog to feed. Often this has me thinking about how I just have too much to do. Our old cat, Miss Little (age 17 and the matriarch of the house) always comes to sit on my lap just as I've balanced my texts around the computer and am trying to type - she's actually not here yet but will likely be coming. More often than not, her arrival - jumping onto my lap with claws gripping my thighs for purchase - is a bit painful and immediately following her excruciating appearance, pain and dosa arise. I think of how annoying she is, and how demanding and self-centred she is - all in a flash. I want to put her back on the floor because soon she'll be putting her paw in my face to force me to stop typing and attend to her majesty. Sometimes I just do put her on the floor. Sometimes, though, I get thoughts that might be about 'deliberate practise' because I start thinking about mettaa and how its good to be kind to other beings and how this cat is a being like me, albeit existing in a different realm, and how I *should* try to be kind to her because the Buddha taught about mettaa. I usually wind up stopping and petting her for awhile before setting her down. My petting Miss Little after all those thoughts would, to me, represent 'deliberate practise.' In the above, I know I'm sunk because of the 'should' that interjects itself into the inner monologue. I often sense an absence of mettaa, although I'm acting as if it were present - I'm suppressing annoyance as if it is me in charge. Often I'm just appearing kind, as it were, but I don't think it is true mettaa. Would the above be an example of 'someone attempting deliberate practise?' Would this fit with the '...thus you should train yourselves...' aspect of the points you make above? Sincerely, Scott. #98483 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Scott, I enjoyed reading your tale about the cat. Wonderful. It shows how fast kusala cittas and akusala cittas alternate. They arise before you can think: now I must do this or that. Nina. Op 15-jun-2009, om 13:54 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > how this cat is a being like me, albeit existing in a different > realm, and how I *should* try to be kind to her because the Buddha > taught about mettaa. I usually wind up stopping and petting her for > awhile before setting her down. My petting Miss Little after all > those thoughts would, to me, represent 'deliberate practise.' > > In the above, I know I'm sunk because of the 'should' that > interjects itself into the inner monologue. I often sense an > absence of mettaa, although I'm acting as if it were present - I'm > suppressing annoyance as if it is me in charge. Often I'm just > appearing kind, as it were, but I don't think it is true mettaa. > > Would the above be an example of 'someone attempting deliberate > practise?' Would this fit with the '...thus you should train > yourselves...' aspect of the points you make above? #98484 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 nilovg Dear Lukas and friends, Op 15-jun-2009, om 8:02 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > People may more or less understand what citta is; they know that it > is the mind which is common to everybody, but if one only knows > this and does not really investigate the nature of citta, one will > not know at which moment citta occurs.> ------ N: Here we see again that Kh Sujin always points to the present moment. We have to really consider and investigate the citta occurring now, otherwise we are merely speculating. And there is always some moment of citta or other. A lot of thinking anyway. ------- Nina. #98485 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking nilovg Dear Mike, Azita, Phil, Op 15-jun-2009, om 0:36 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > At the same time they led their daily lives, like we now. Both monks > > > and laypeople have to be careful in matters of health lest they > > > become sick. Thinking 'there is no tooth, no toothstick' does not > > > have to occur all the time. It does not mean that they have to > throw > > > away all tooth sticks or not take care of their teeth. From > examples > > > like this we can see that satipa.t.thaana should be very natural. > > Mike; I don't see that that follows at all--no offense. And all > akusala is also 'very natural'. I see nothing particularly nice > about 'natural'. -------- > N: You do not have to sit still in a room for satipa.t.thaana, but > just lead your daily life naturally. Not doing any extraordinary > things. Ascetical practices are not necessary for laypeople. > Laypeople do not have to live like monks. The Buddha gave much practical advice in the Vinaya for the daily living of the monks and this shows his compassion. An example is the alleywalk. One should not sit all day but also stretch the body or walk. Sappaya sampaja~n~na. This is a kind of common sense understanding. Do what is suitable for your health. -------- > > > azita: good reminders, Nina, satipatthaana being very natural, I > think > > we forget this and think we can do something for sati to arise, > but it > > must be as natural as seeing, hearing. > > Mike:I suppose that some of 'us' do--all perfectly natural. What > satipa.t.thaana 'must be' is well detailed in the texts, I think. > When the > conditions for it are present (have accumulated sufficiently, I > think it's safe to say) it will occur and of course when they > aren't it won't. ------- N: Yes. Knowing what these conditions are and what is counteractive certainly helps. ------ Nina. #98486 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:47 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Howard, Robert E, Jon How are you? I dropped in briefly. When Jon made the following statements: " I understand the expression "practice of the dhamma" to refer to an arising moment of satipatthana/insight. ... This certainly is not something that can be deliberately done. ... It happens by its own conditions. .... Hoping this explains my perspective." Howard wrote: " When you define something in a manner that guarantees a certain result (such as deliberative activity with regard to it being impossible), that result certainly will then pertain to the phenomenon so defined. I simply think that your definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't define the practice urged by the Buddha, which was a matter of actual choice. Some followers DID choose to seek out "roots of trees," and some did not." When Suan Lu Zaw read Howard's above statement, he, being a traditional teacher of Theravada, recited "Saadhu, Saadhu, Saadhu". Howard wrote the following in reply to Jon's mindless misuse of the expression "condiditons (paccaya)": " It doesn't HAVE conditions that may just happen to occur. Rather, the conditions are created largely by human intention and intentional actions. It is these that direct our lives for the most part. An unbiased reading of the suttas displays that again and again and again. But, Jon, of course I'm not writing this to persuade you. It seems that your mind is made up, and you will not see the plain words of the suttas no matter how often they are repeated. You see more deeply, it seems you think, whereas I think that you see what you wish to believe, not considering that you might be mistaken. I'm writing this for others who might be more willing to look and see, putting aside their beliefs." When he read the above statement of Howard, Suan Lu Zaw, being a practitioner of intensive Satipa.t.thaana meditation using inhalation and exhalation as meditation objects, wrote the following: I have been wanting to get the above message across to Jon, Sarah and other KS Folks ever since their wrong view and wrong speech about formal Buddhist meditation practice were brought to my attention. Jon and KS Folks not only fail to 'see the plain words of the suttas', but also are blind to the commentaries of those suttas, for example, "Commentary on Mahasatipa.t.thaana Sutta", the English translation of which has been done by Soma Thera and is available online. As far as Soma Thera is concerned, Satipa.t.thaana Sutta is an instruction manual of meditation practice. Please read his introduction to his commendable work. Here is the importance of choice and purpose from Soma Thera's translation on "Clear Comprehension (Sampajaa)". "There are these four kinds of comprehension: clear comprehension of purpose [satthaka sampajaa], of suitability [sappaya sampajaa], of resort [gocara sampajaa], and of non-delusion [asammoha sampajaa]." The above commentary passage unambiguously exposes Sarah, Jon and KS Folks' wrong view and wrong speech about purpose and purposeful actions to which they object. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98487 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:07 am Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and Nina), Permit a bit of analysis (since agreement is only superficial as I will demonstrate), regarding: N: "I want to add that what is there in that one moment is very little, hardly anything, and very ephemeral" H: "Quite so, and inseparable (though distinguishable) from what went before and what co-occurs, and so, nothing in-and-of-itself..." Scott: You've added to Nina's statement, embellishing it with views she likely doesn't hold. I think that Nina does consider it appropriate that dhammaa are considered to have sabhava, while here you make the case again for the insubstantialist view. 'Inseparable...from what went before' is likely disputable as well, since I think Nina would suggest that a dhamma arises and completely falls away prior to the arising of a subsequent dhamma - thus an entirely separable moment. H: "...Yet the little nothings of one mind stream, while interacting with those of others - mutually reflecting, so to speak, are distinguishable nonetheless from those others. Your kamma is not mine. Your experiences (of sights, sounds, tastes etc) are not mine. The streams of experience are distinguishable, and it is in that sense, and ONLY that sense, that there is a 'you' distinguishable from 'me.'..." Scott: I'd say this is all thinking. 'Little nothings' is far from saying that the moment is ephemeral. While Nina focuses on the brief temporal aspect of consciousness, you suggest she is making a case for insubstantiability. I've never read her to be an insubstantialist. 'Hardly anything' refers to the moment, not the dhammaa. I'd suggest as well that the whole idea of interacting and mutually reflecting mind-streams is conceptual and has no basis in reality. I've never read Nina to suggest that these exist. H: "...That said, I strongly agree with you that seeing the near-nothingness and ephemeral nature of all phenomena, indeed helps one, as you say next, to let go of reifying those phenomena into apparently self-existent, separate entities, and reifying the heap of them into an imagined existent we call 'a person.'..." Scott: Again, you'd suggest that Nina is an insubstantialist, and that she would agree with this reformulation of her words, and that she has been arguing against the fact that a dhamma has its characteristic all along. That there is no 'person' is true, but Nina has never said any of the rest you seem to suggest she and you are agreeing to. Very sneaky. ;-) H: "...In fact, for me, seeing anicca as I do, as a radical non-remaining of anything for any time at all, leads me to seeing only an ungraspable emptiness. So, I find the sense of anicca leading to a sense of anatta. I 'pray' at times that this seeing should intensify to the extent that relinquishment of everything is the natural response. The aim of the Dhamma isn't that of achieving something but of relinquishing everything - a peaceful letting go that I think could only be described by a sigh of relief." Scott: Here are your own views, which have been oft-stated, but at least aren't couched under the terms of agreement with views which are in fact in opposition to these. For what it's worth, and in my total opinion, I doubt very much that a 'sigh of relief' - suggesting something other than total equanimity and detachment -would be the experience at the arising of the Path. That's the dream of someone really lusting after Nibbaana, and reflects the more or less 'religious zealot's' view of practise and 'buddhism.' Sincerely, Scott. #98488 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:43 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) scottduncan2 Dear Suan Lu Zaw, 'traditional teacher of Theravada' and 'practitioner of intensive Satipa.t.thaana meditation using inhalation and exhalation as meditation objects,' Scott Duncan, ordinary goof-ball, reads a post by Suan Lu Zaw, and, adopting the appropriate style as a literary device, suggest that you certainly have your Very Own Strong and Dearly-Held Opinions, and offer the Opinions of Others Which Reflect Your Own Strong and Dearly-Held Opinions as support. This is all well and good. I'm sorry to say that I fail to appreciate how labelling one's self in a certain way - as if this is relevant - and citing others' similar opinions necessarily lends any credibility to a given view. Anyone can and does call him or herself a 'teacher' these days. I say the Dhamma is the teacher and it is not named either 'Sujin Boriharnwanaket' or 'Suan Lu Zaw.' No need to reply, Suan Lu Zaw, since this is only my Own Strong and Dearly-Held Opinion about 'teachers' (especially ones for whom being a teacher seems a Very Important Matter of Identity - a good reason to eschew such a one, in my opinion again). ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #98489 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Dear Suan (and Jon, and Robert) - In a message dated 6/15/2009 11:48:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@... writes: When Suan Lu Zaw read Howard's above statement, he, being a traditional teacher of Theravada, recited "Saadhu, Saadhu, Saadhu". Howard wrote the following in reply to Jon's mindless misuse of the expression "condiditons (paccaya)" ============================= Suan, I am truly edified that you approve of what I wrote to Jon, and I appreciate your telling me of your approval, but, in fact, I wish I had used softer language in expressing myself to Jon, and, I regret that I have to mix in some negative elements with this "thank you" reply to you. Though my view of the Dhamma is way different from that of Jon's, and as much as I am pleased by your approval of my perspective, I wish to distance myself from your characterization of Jon's writing as "mindless misuse". While I obviously strongly disagree with Jon's perspective on much of the Dhamma, I nonetheless seriously respect his devotion to it and his enabling the dissemination of the Buddha word. I consider Jon to be a very good and kind man, and I value him as a good friend. I want to be clear that my disagreements with Jon are matters of differing belief and interpretation but not condemnation. With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #98490 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Nina) - In a message dated 6/15/2009 12:09:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard (and Nina), Permit a bit of analysis (since agreement is only superficial as I will demonstrate), regarding: N: "I want to add that what is there in that one moment is very little, hardly anything, and very ephemeral" H: "Quite so, and inseparable (though distinguishable) from what went before and what co-occurs, and so, nothing in-and-of-itself..." Scott: You've added to Nina's statement, embellishing it with views she likely doesn't hold. ------------------------------------- Perhaps she does indeed disagree. You are correct that what I wrote was an addition - that's why I wrote "and". ------------------------------------ I think that Nina does consider it appropriate that dhammaa are considered to have sabhava, while here you make the case again for the insubstantialist view. 'Inseparable...from what went before' is likely disputable as well, since I think Nina would suggest that a dhamma arises and completely f alls away prior to the arising of a subsequent dhamma - thus an entirely separable moment. --------------------------------------- It is a matter of what is meant by 'inseparable'. Abhidhamma considers there to be NO GAPS between cittas, so there is a sense that Nina might well accept. Moreover, I write 'inseparable' to also refer to being interpendently related to. I do NOT use the word to suggest identity or indistinguishability, and I have made that clear quite often. --------------------------------------- H: "...Yet the little nothings of one mind stream, while interacting with those of others - mutually reflecting, so to speak, are distinguishable nonetheless from those others. Your kamma is not mine. Your experiences (of sights, sounds, tastes etc) are not mine. The streams of experience are distinguishable, and it is in that sense, and ONLY that sense, that there is a 'you' distinguishable from 'me.'..." Scott: I'd say this is all thinking. ------------------------------------- I'd like to see to see you attempt a conversation or make an assertion without thinking! --------------------------------------- 'Little nothings' is far from saying that the moment is ephemeral. While Nina focuses on the brief temporal aspect of consciousness, you suggest she is making a case for insubstantiability. ----------------------------------------- I was picking up on Nina's use of "hardly anything"! Will you now criticize her too? Scott, it seems to me you are just being ornery. Do you really enjoy arguments? I do not. ------------------------------------------ I've never read her to be an insubstantialist. 'Hardly anything' refers to the moment, not the dhammaa. I'd suggest as well that the whole idea of interacting and mutually reflecting mind-streams is conceptual and has no basis in reality. I've never read Nina to suggest that these exist. H: "...That said, I strongly agree with you that seeing the near-nothingness and ephemeral nature of all phenomena, indeed helps one, as you say next, to let go of reifying those phenomena into apparently self-existent, separate entities, and reifying the heap of them into an imagined existent we call 'a person.'..." Scott: Again, you'd suggest that Nina is an insubstantialist, and that she would agree with this reformulation of her words, and that she has been arguing against the fact that a dhamma has its characteristic all along. That there is no 'person' is true, but Nina has never said any of the rest you seem to suggest she and you are agreeing to. Very sneaky. ;-) ----------------------------------------- Bye. =========================== With metta, Howard #98491 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Ken, kenhowardau wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , "m. nease" wrote: > >> By the way, though--I see nothing wrong with 'deliberate practice' > per se. As a matter of fact, every time the Buddha said, "...thus you > should train..." (sorry, I don't have the Paali at hand) he was > encouraging what could surely be called deliberate and even systematic > practice (in conventional terms), often but not always of samatha/jhaana > bhaavanaa. The texts make it clear that such practices were common in > the monasteries of the day, often with the Buddha present and even > participating. > > -------------- > > Hi Mike (and Scott), > > You and I often say here that life, in reality, lasts for only one > moment. How could that understanding conform with the understanding of a > deliberate practice (including a practice of cleaning the teeth) that > lasted for several moments? Can't there be only one or the other? 'A lifetime' in conventional terms doesn't mean the same thing as the duration of any dhamma in ultimate terms, as I see it. The former refers ultimately to a practically infinite number of moments (kha.nas) and the latter to only one I think. > I believe the Buddha's references to responsible, sensible, daily life > activities were to answer the perennial question "Given that there is > only the present moment, in what way are we to understand "walking" > "eating" "dressing" "teeth-cleaning" and so on?" As above. Two different modes of speech AND two different things referred to: (a) a pa~n~natti and (b) a dhamma. In fact, I think that to say that "life, in reality, lasts for only one moment" is very misleading for that reason. It conflates conventional speech with ultimate speech AND concepts with real phenomena, as I see it. mike #98492 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Phil, Phil wrote: > Hi Mike, Nina, Azita and all > > > > > N: why not leave out conceptual? Just right view of different levels. > > > > Because I think that the conceptual level of the teachings is > indispensable. I don't like the expression 'conceptual right view' > either, even > > though I've used it. However, as I read the Great Forty (among > others) the Buddha spoke about a 'right view' in terms of pa~n~nattis > that did > > not refer either directly to present dhammas or the factors of > mundane or supramundane right view. That's my point. Of course I may be > wrong, > > but obviously I don't think so. > > Ph: Sorry for butting in again, Not at all-- > but may I suggest that it would be > helpful to consider those suttas in which the Buddha withheld the deep > teaching "particular to the Buddha (Buddhas?)" until he knew that the > listener was ready? I made an unsuccesful attempt to round up those > suttas a while back, but I recall there was one where the Buddha taught > a leper on the roadside and started with some topics that were not > "particular to the Buddha." I can't recall offhand how the sutta > describe those topics (generosity? result of deeds?) but I am pretty > sure that for your current discussion it would be good to consider those > topics and why it is said that the Buddha emphasized them until he knew > that the listener was ready for the deep paramattha Dhamma. We don't > have the Buddha with us to tell us when we're ready, but I think those > suttas should help do away with the dismissal and even belittlement (e.g > suggestions that one try Christianity instead) of the kind of > conventional teachings that were included in the Buddha's teaching to > people of limited understanding. It is good and necessary to familiarize > oneself with the theory of the deep teaching, but to make such teachings > the core of one's practice seems to me to go against the way the Buddha > himself offered the Dhamma to listeners. It feels like a kind of > appropriation of those deep teachings. Since we're speaking in such general (and conventional) terms, it's my personal opinion that 'the core of one's practice' (though I would hesitate to use that expression) should be to hear and reflect on the true Dhamma. Meaning all of it, from all three baskets, or as much of it as I'm able to begin to comprehend. As I see it, any understanding of "popular discourse" not absolutely consistent with and conforming to "highest-meaning discourse" is misunderstanding and should be studiously avoided. > I can't seem to post without editorializing. Don't we all? > Sorry. This will be my last > post until I am ready to discuss properly, I still believe that will > happen someday, I really do. My troll days will be long behind me someday... > > Anyways, please have a look at those suttas, if you can find them. I > think you'll find them very relevant to this discussion. If you'd like to select any of those suttas (or any part of one) I'd be glad to discuss it with you in the light of the above. Thanks for your patience. mike #98493 From: "jessicamui" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Nina, Thank you very much for the reply. Please find more questions below: N: The citta which thinks of a concept is real and it arises. The concept is not an ultimate reality; it does not arise, it is merely an object citta thinks of. Citta can think of realities and also of that which is not a reality. J: does the concept belongs of one of the 18 elements ? It is an aramana that arise in the mind by its own ? As you know, citta's function is to know. It is conditioned by the object that arise in the mind-door. > ---------- N: In a way one can say that concepts are mind-made, in as far as they are objects of thinking, but they are different from naama and ruupa which arise and fall away all the time. Citta, cetasika and ruupa arise each of their own specific conditions, and there are several conditions for their arising, more than one. It is useful to learn more about the different classes of conditions, this will help us to see that we cannot speak of conditions in the case of a concept. A concept is not produced by kamma, it is not caused by a hetu, it is not conditioned by contiguity-condition, etc. The concept itself can be a condition for citta, by way of object-condition. The citta that thinks arises and falls away, not the concept itself citta thinks of. For example you think of a rose. Do you find that the rose arises and falls away? It seems that it stays or that it was already there. Think of a specific person. Does it not seem that the person is alive, already there? Also the nimitta used in jhaana, such as the kasina, it seems that it is already there. Not the rupas it is made of, but the image of the kasina is the subject of meditation. J: I speak from my own experience: when I woke up this morning, the first thing that the mind thinks about is a email that I sent last night. So the object it thinks of seems conditioned by karma and/or repetition conditioning to me. It cannot think of things that it hasn't experienced before. Rose or kasina are all things that the mind is extremely familiar with. In meditation, I have mental image appears and passes away without associated thoughts. The reason that I'm interested in the "concept" because it is usually wrong - don't represent the true reality. It is something that we cannot function without, but I think it conditions moha if not knowing the nature of it. Apart from the Abdhidhamma, did Buddha mention the pannatti in the sutta ? Thanks a lot for helping my understanding. With Much Metta, Jessica. #98494 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:35 pm Subject: Physical Phenomena (21) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (21) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas Questions and comments are welcome. -------------------- The four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion are always present wherever there is materiality. Apart from these four elements there are other ruupas, namely twentyfour "derived ruupas" (in Paali: upaadaa ruupas). The "Atthasaalinii" (II, Book II, Ch III, 305) explains about them: "... grasping the great essentials (great elements), not letting go, such (derived ruupas) proceed in dependance upon them." Thus, the derived raapas cannot arise without the four Great Elements. Four among the derived ruupas always arise together with the four Great Elements in every group of ruupas and are thus present wherever materiality occurs, no matter whether ruupas of the body or materiality outside the body. These four ruupas are the following: visible object (or colour) odour flavour nutrition The four Great elements and these four derived ruupas, which always arise together, are called the "inseparable ruupas" (in Paali: avinibbhoga ruupas). Wherever solidity arises, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible object or colour, this is a ruupa that can be experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a person. Visible object is the only ruupa that can be seen. -------------------- Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas (to be continued). With metta, Han #98495 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott, Scott wrote: > Dear Mike, > Regarding: > M: "By my reading (as I recall it) it is the actual 'other person's' > citta (or its nimitta more properly, I think). I'm not much interested > in the abhi~n~nas, though. It does seem to me that, given the incredible > difficulty of finding the rightconditions for the cultivation even of > ordinary jhaana--even inBuddhaghosa's time (according to the > texts)--the idea that modernlaypeople could be achieving them at home > (or on 'retreats') in their sparetime seems very far-fetched to me, to > say the least." > > Scott: Agreed to the above. Ithink I suggested this particular > abhi~n~na to note, in deference toHoward, that technically it is > possible for citta (internal) tohave citta - or its nimitta (external) > as object. The details might beinteresting and bear on his particular > argument in a sense, although notin support of his main point of there > being a person out there. > > M: "By the way, though--I seenothing wrong with 'deliberate practice' > per se. As a matter of fact, everytime the Buddha said, '...thus you > should train...' he wasencouraging what could surely be called > deliberate and even systematicpractice (in conventional terms), often > but not always of samatha/jhaanabhaavanaa....By my reading, these > practices had a fairly wide rangeof goals (other than satipa.t.thaana, > by my reading). So the problemisn't with 'deliberate practice' per se > (which, in the context of '...thusyou should train yourselves...'), > obviously refers to thecultivation of various wholesome or beautiful > factors--and other results--) butrather with 'deliberate practice' > accompanied by the counterfeits ofthese factors. So it seems to me, > anyway." > > Scott: I'd be interested to readthe way in which you would > differentiate 'deliberatepractise' and 'counterfeit deliberate > practise'. Well, I wouldn't have chosen theexpression 'deliberate practise' for the purposes of any discussion,personally. I really think the expression's a kind of chimera and Ihaven't seen any virtue in it as a subject so far. But since I usedit anyway: there are a fair few activities in the texts that couldcertainly be described (and sometimes, in my opinion, prescribed) as'deliberate'--rather than, say, "ill-advised; chance, haphazard,hit-or-miss, random; aimless, desultory, purposeless; hasty, hurried,rushed; abrupt, impetuous, sudden; automatic, extemporaneous,impromptu, instinctive or spontaneous" (thanks, m-w.com). Ofcourse 'practise--by either spelling--is an awfully loaded term. Inthe usual sense it refers to pa.tipatti and that is both a bigsubject and a particular one. My point is that whether it'spa.tipatti or not, an activity that is not ill-advised; chance,haphazard, hit-or-miss, random; aimless, desultory, purposeless;hasty, hurried, rushed; abrupt, impetuous, sudden; automatic,extemporaneous, impromptu, instinctive or spontaneous is not alsonecessarily attended by wrong view or even self-perception. If itis, I've never seen evidence of it from the texts. To put itanother way, it seems to me that if the Buddha had known that anydeliberate activity (speaking conventionally) was necessarilyunwholesome, he might have mentioned it at some point. > Yes, I suppose that we are referring to dhammaa, and to the > tendency to take akusala for kusala when satipa.t.thana is not well > developed, but I think we can say more than simply repeat the mantra > that it is just by conditions and leave it at that. OK-- > I'd say that it is the dhamma which makes or breaks it. If mettaa arises > and kindness ensues then its mettaa. If something else arises and is > mistaken for mettaa and something looking like kindness ensues, then its > another story. Agreed, with the proviso that it's the cetasika that makes or breaks the citta, if I'm not mistaken. > For the sake of discussion, I'm prone to take as a fundamental basis for > any consideration of these things the premise that nothing is done by a > self since there is no self. I find this removes complication and avoids > the sophistic traps common to other views. I couldn't agree more. > With this basic premise, I proceed to consider that whatever is being > 'experienced' or 'done' is simply due to the complex interplay of > conditions - as the mantra affirms. Sure--except that I'd say that 'whatever is being 'experienced'' (through any of the sense doors) is vipaaka, while 'whatever is being done'' is kamma. Both conditioned of course. > But what might 'deliberate practise' > look like? I don't want to touch 'deliberate practise' again, but as for a deliberate activity, I'd say that it'sa pa~n~natti, a designation--it wouldn't 'look like' anything (I'm sure you didn't mean that?) since it isn't 'form cognizable through the eye'; but a description (or prescription) of it in the texts might precede (and or follow) the words, "...thus you should train yourself [or yourselves]". > I'll offer an example for you consideration (if you have a better one, > please offer it, since this one might be a bit lame): > > I get up early to study. I'm tired some days, and before I can get to > the tasks I set out for myself, I have cats and a dog to feed. Often > this has me thinking about how I just have too much to do. Our old cat, > Miss Little (age 17 and the matriarch of the house) always comes to sit > on my lap just as I've balanced my texts around the computer and am > trying to type - she's actually not here yet but will likely be coming. Our Catriarch (Istar--I think she would prefer Empress) is also seventeen. She's also here first thing in the morning. > More often than not, her arrival -jumping onto my lap with claws > gripping my thighs for purchase -is a bit painful and immediately > following her excruciating appearance, pain and dosa arise. I think of > how annoying she is, and how demanding and self-centred she is - all in > a flash. I want to put her back on the floor because soon she'll be > putting her paw in my face to force me to stop typing and attend to her > majesty. Been there. Often. > Sometimes I just do put her on the floor. Sometimes, though, I get > thoughts that might be about 'deliberate practise' because I start > thinking about mettaa and how its good to be kind to other beings and > how this cat is a being like me, albeit existing in a different realm, > and how I *should* try to be kind to her because the Buddha taught about > mettaa. I usually wind up stopping and petting her for awhile before > setting her down. My petting Miss Little after all those thoughts would, > to me, represent 'deliberate practise.' Well, I take your point. But 'deliberate practise' (I dislike that phrase more every time I useit--that's kusala, eh?) is just an idea. 'In reality', there've been countless different mental factors--friendliness, aversion, remorse,indifference, gladness, stinginess etc. not to mention innumerable sense- and mind-door processes arising and subsiding in the course of this event. If you're suggesting that the whole event (or a substantial part of it) represents miccha pa.tipatti--that's what we're really talking about,isn't it?--then no, that's a dhamma that may or may not have arisen any number of times in any few seconds of this 'event', as I see it. To say otherwise seems to me to conflate dhammas with pa~n~nattis (the one string to my bow, these days, it seems). > In the above, I know I'm sunk because of the 'should' that interjects > itself into the inner monologue. I often sense an absence of mettaa, > although I'm acting as if it were present - I'm suppressing annoyance as > if it is me in charge. Often I'm just appearing kind, as it were, but I > don't think it is true mettaa. Different moments, I think. If your kitty's anything like ours, plenty of both. Ours becomes more dear and more annoying almost with each passing day (she's become a bit demented). I seldom regard her dearness without recoiling in horror (not in the same instant, of course). > Would the above be an example of' someone attempting deliberate > practise?' Would this fit with the'...thus you should train > yourselves...' aspect of the points you make above? As above. mike p.s. I entered this in the 'Rich Text'(Beta) option. It rendered some italics as I wanted them but seems--according to the preview--to have deleted quite a few spaces. I tried to restore them but they seem to proliferate(!) Sorry if this makes for difficult reading. #98496 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:11 pm Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) kenhowardau Hi Sarah and Mike, ---- <. . .>S: > The supramundane magga cittas have the immediately following phala cittas as vipaaka. ---- Thanks, I had forgotten that. --------- S: > The right view (and insight) that is not lokuttara can have results anytime - in this life or future lives. --------- That makes sense, but now I have another question: Why do you say right view *and* insight? Aren't they the same? --------------- S: > I'm also thinking of the special rebirths of the anagaami, for example... ------------ I vaguely remember them. Are they additional results (in addition to the phala cittas) of supramundane magga cittas? --------------------- S: > Enjoyed your discussion, thanks. --------------------- Thanks, I intend hounding Mike until he finally concedes that the Buddha taught satipatthana (right understanding of conditioned dhammas) full stop! That means, no conventional teachings. :-) Ken H #98497 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:04 pm Subject: Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear friends Chapter 7 continous: --------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98498 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:05 pm Subject: The Disciple! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is a Good Lay Buddhist Disciple? The Sakyan Mahānāma once asked the Blessed Buddha : Venerable Sir, What is a Lay Disciple? Having taken refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha, one is a Lay Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Pure Disciple? Avoiding all killing, stealing, sexual abuse, lying, and neither drinking any alcohol nor taking any drugs causing neglect, one is a Pure Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Faithful Disciple? Placing faith in the Enlightenment of the Tathāgata thus: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! ... teacher & guide of gods and humans, exalted, & awakened ... one is a Faithful Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Generous Disciple? Living mentally devoid stinginess, liberal, open-handed, delighting in donation, devoted to charity, enjoying all giving & sharing, one is a Generous Disciple! Venerable Sir, What is a Disciple who Understands? One who understands the cause of arising & ceasing, which is Noble , decisive, & which enables eradication of Suffering is a wise Disciple who Understands! More on the Buddhist Lay Disciple (Upāsaka ): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/upaasaka.htm The Buddha Gotama's first five disciples (Pañcavaggiyā ) Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:395] Section 55 on Stream-Entry: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 37: Mahānāma. Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Good Lay Disciple! #98499 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends Bhante continues: ------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98500 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard and Scott, Please, I hope you both can laugh now. I am laughing at least :-)) I tried to follow our debate about what I have written, and how to interprate it, but I find it too complicated. Nina. Op 15-jun-2009, om 20:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I was picking up on Nina's use of "hardly anything"! Will you now > criticize her too? Scott, it seems to me you are just being ornery. > Do you > really enjoy arguments? I do not. #98501 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:35 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, We will keep on clinging to the whole of the five khandhas, to body and mental phenomena so long as we have not realized that they are only elements which do not stay. We read in the Kindred Sayings (III, Khandh-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Elements, Middle Fifty, Chapter 5, 102, Impermanence) that the Buddha said to the monks at Svatth: The perceiving of impermanence, monks, if practised and enlarged, wears out all sensual lust, all lust of rebirth, all ignorance, it wears out, tears out all conceit of I am. Just as, monks, in the autumn season a ploughman with a great ploughshare, cuts through the spreading roots as he ploughs; even so, monks, the perceiving of impermanence, if practised and enlarged, wears out all sensual lust, wears out all lust for body, all lust for rebirth, wears out all ignorance, wears out, tears out all conceit of I am. The Buddha uses several similes in order to explain that the perception of impermanence wears out all clinging, ignorance and conceit. Further on we read: Just as, monks, in the autumn season, when the sky is opened up and cleared of clouds, the sun, leaping up into the firmament, drives away all darkness from the heavens, and shines and burns and flashes forth; even so, monks, the perceiving of impermanence, if practised and enlarged, wears out all sensual lust, wears out all lust for body, all desire for rebirth, all ignorance, wears out, tears out all conceit of I am. And in what way, monks, does it so wear them out? It is by seeing: Such is body; such is the arising of body; such is the ceasing of body. Such is feeling, remembrance, the activities (sankhra-kkhandha), such is consciousness, its arising and its ceasing. Even thus practised and enlarged, monks, does the perceiving of impermanence wear out all sensual lust, all lust for body, all desire for rebirth, all ignorance, wears out, tears out all conceit of I am. ******** Nina. #98502 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas (& Nina), Good, probing questions as usual:) --- On Fri, 12/6/09, szmicio wrote: > >> L: When Buddha became a Buddha did he still experience nimitta of > > realities? > ------ >> N: Nibbaana is animitta, thus when attaining Buddhahood he > experienced nibbaana which is animitta. As to being aware of visible > object, this has just fallen away when being aware of it, no matter > who is aware of it, a Buddha or an ordinary person. I am not sure we > can speak of nimitta in the case of a Buddha. He does not live in the > world of dreams, like we do. > --------- >L: Yes but in the case of mahakiriyacittas of Buddha does he still has nimitta? Is he aware of reality or aware of shadow of reality? .... S: As I understand, apart from when sense door objects are experienced, it is the nimitta of the reality which is experienced, no matter 'who' or 'when', apart from nibbaana, the animitta object, of course. No attachment, therefore no dreams, no proliferations, but still all conditioned dhammaa have nimitta which is experienced through the mind-door. ... >L:There is a kind of nana that is no tender insight and it knows how things falls away(dont remember the name),does in such moments of that nana, nimitta is still present? ... S: It's always the nimitta of the conditioned dhamma experienced through the mind-door, as I understand, even at this stage of insight. As I've said before, Lukas, you so often ask the same questions I do! Metta, Sarah ====== #98503 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:17 am Subject: Kamma condition (for anytime/nnkkhanika result /vipaka) sprlrt Hi (Lukas, Jessica), Cetana cetasika is included in sankhara khandha along with other 49 (while saa and vedana cetasika are separate khandhas). It arises indivisibly associated, thoroughly blended, sampayutta, with all 89 possible cittas, kusala or akusala (the succession of seven javana cittas, where sankhara khandha accumulates, taking place in each process/vithi, the knowing of an object through one of the six doors), vipaka, and kiriya. In a kusala or akusala javana citta, cetana (also) operates as nnkkhanika kamma paccaya, it'll condition the unexpected arising of a vipaka citta such as one in a sense door processes, cakkhu...kaya-viana, seeing...body consciousness, anytime, unpredictably (but by a Buddha). Conventionally one "(free) wills" first, and only afterwards "acts" accordingly, while actually they are one and the same dhamma, arising at the same time and at the same place, vatthu; knowing the same object, arammana, and falling away immediately, along with the citta and all its associated nama-dhammas. When it is nnkkhanika kamma paccaya, cetana/intention is action/kamma (through one of the three doors of actions: mind-speech-body, mano-vaci-kaya kammadvara), and viceversa. Alberto Patthna ... 2. Concise exposition of conditions ... Kamma condition Kusala and akusala kamma [cetana] is condition, as kamma condition, for vipaka khandhas and for stored up [kamma-produced, inc. the six basis, vatthus, where cittas arise] rupas. [this is nnkkhanika, anytime, kamma paccaya] Cetana is condition, as kamma condition, for its associated dhammas and for citta-produced rupas. [this is sahajata, conascent, kamma paccaya] pli kusalaakusala.m kamma.m vipaakaana.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena paccayo. cetanaa sampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena paccayo''ti #98504 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/16/2009 4:24:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Scott, Please, I hope you both can laugh now. I am laughing at least :-)) I tried to follow our debate about what I have written, and how to interprate it, but I find it too complicated. Nina =========================== As for my laughing, well I'm not so sure about that. :-) But I do always have a warm smile when interacting with you. I'm far more concerned with a heart knowing a heart than with disputation and defense of views. BTW, to the extent that I may have improperly "snuck in" some of my understandings of Dhamma as matching yours when they do not, I apologize. On some matters I do think we are pretty close, but, of course, we do not match. 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) #98505 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Mike (and Istar the Catriarch), Regarding: M: "Well, I wouldn't have chosen the expression 'deliberate practise'...I really think the expression's a kind of chimera...there are a fair few activities in the texts that could certainly be described (and sometimes, in my opinion, prescribed) as 'deliberate'--rather than, say, 'ill-advised; chance, haphazard, hit-or-miss, random; aimless, desultory, purposeless; hasty, hurried, rushed; abrupt, impetuous, sudden; automatic, extemporaneous, impromptu, instinctive or spontaneous'...In the usual sense it refers to pa.tipatti and that is both a big subject and a particular one." Scott: Yes, I'm with you on the chimeric nature of the whole 'deliberate practise/practice' thing. I'm thinking that whether the 'activity' arises out of kusala or akusala would be more apposite. An 'act' of murder or theft could be very deliberate, for example. I'd maybe add that when it is kusala, it might naturally have qualities which are the antonyms of the list above. I'm still thinking of the distinction between 'an act' as a conventional idea and the moment of kusala or akusala which serves as condition for the very long and complex sequence of arisings and fallings-away which go to 'form' and 'act'. Perhaps it would be more precise to stick to 'pa.tipatti' and take care how it is rendered in English. I think as well that since all things are conditioned - are very complexly organized and not random - these words might not apply anyway. M: "My point is that whether it's pa.tipatti or not, an activity that is not ill-advised; chance...or spontaneous is not also necessarily attended by wrong view or even self-perception. If it is, I've never seen evidence of it from the texts. To put it another way, it seems to me that if the Buddha had known that any deliberate activity (speaking conventionally) was necessarily unwholesome, he might have mentioned it at some point." Scott: These are good points. I'm going to review the U.P. - oh, here's Miss Little again - and go over pa.tipatti. M: "Agreed, with the proviso that it's the cetasika that makes or breaks the citta, if I'm not mistaken." Scott: Yeah, I think you're correct. M: "Sure--except that I'd say that 'whatever is being 'experienced'' (through any of the sense doors) is vipaaka, while 'whatever is being done'' is kamma. Both conditioned of course...I don't want to touch 'deliberate practise' again, but as for a deliberate activity, I'd say that it's a pa~n~natti, a designation--it wouldn't 'look like' anything (I'm sure you didn't mean that?) since it isn't 'form cognizable through the eye'; but a description (or prescription) of it in the texts might precede (and or follow) the words, '...thus you should train yourself [or yourselves]'." Scott: Yes, not literally 'look like something' but the phrase is relevant due to the manner in which I think the 'thus you should train yourself...' is normally misunderstood. I think it is taken quite literally and the look of the act - the postures and all that - take on a meaning and magical significance. The identity, as it were, of 'the buddhist' and the postural and behavioural concomitants imagined to, of necessity, belong to this identity, seem all the rage. We shall stop soon with the 'deliberate practise/practice.' M: Well, I take your point. But 'deliberate practise' (I dislike that phrase more every time I use it--that's kusala, eh?) is just an idea. 'In reality', there've been countless different mental factors--friendliness, aversion, remorse,indifference, gladness, stinginess etc. not to mention innumerable sense- and mind-door processes arising and subsiding in the course of this event. If you're suggesting that the whole event (or a substantial part of it) represents miccha pa.tipatti--that's what we're really talking about,isn't it?--then no, that's a dhamma that may or may not have arisen any number of times in any few seconds of this 'event', as I see it. To say otherwise seems to me to conflate dhammas with pa~n~nattis (the one string to my bow, these days, it seems)." Scott: I like the above. Good food for thought. I think one point would be that any thinking about 'an act' has to be more than tempered with the knowledge that what we mistake for 'acts' are in fact dhammaa arising and falling away in the moment, and in one moment and then another, interspersed by many varied dhammaa in between. I'll think more about the conflation of dhamma and pa~n~natti - 'thinking' has a lot to do with this tendency, I think. ;-) M: "Different moments, I think. If your kitty's anything like ours, plenty of both. Ours becomes more dear and more annoying almost with each passing day (she's become a bit demented). I seldom regard her dearness without recoiling in horror (not in the same instant, of course)." Scott: Cats seem a lot like people, as conceptual objects and the dhammaa which come and go in relation to visible object that is. Sincerely, Scott. #98506 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding: N: "Please, I hope you both can laugh now. I am laughing at least :-)) I tried to follow our debate about what I have written, and how to interprate it, but I find it too complicated." Scott: Yep! ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #98507 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 16-jun-2009, om 7:04 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Different people who are interested in the Dhamma and study it, > consider it and ponder over it in different ways. They also have > different points of view as far as the practice is concerned. The > world evolves in accordance with the variegated nature of the > cittas of different people. The world is constituted by different > people living in different countries and participating in different > groups and these different individuals condition the events in the > world. ------- N: This is great. It helps us to be more tolerant, patient, gentle, when we meet other viewpoints. If we see or hear disagreeable things from others, and we remember the variegated nature of cittas of different individuals, it can prevent us from being annoyed. We often fail, but we can learn, slowly, as you said the other day. Nina. #98508 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Howard, Op 16-jun-2009, om 12:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > BTW, to the extent that I may have improperly "snuck in" some of my > understandings of Dhamma as matching yours when they do not, I > apologize. On > some matters I do think we are pretty close, but, of course, we do not > match. ------- N: There is nothing you have to apologize for. Often it is a question of wording but not always. Different individuals use different expressions, and they also think differently, because of the variegated nature of citta :-)). Nina. #98509 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Hi Mike, Op 15-jun-2009, om 21:19 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > In fact, I think that to say that "life, in reality, lasts for only > one moment" is very misleading for that reason. It conflates > conventional > speech with ultimate speech AND concepts with real phenomena, as I > see it. ------ N: I think differently, because of the variegated nature of citta. I think it a great reminder. I said: in reality. When we are seeing, visible object is seen and that is at that moment 'our' life. Nothing else. No need to think of conflating, why should we compare the ultimate reality with conventional truth. That does not help us. Better live from moment to moment. But 'your' cittas may think differently, anyway, but just for the moment. ------ Nina. #98510 From: "m_nease" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Nina, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Mike, > Op 15-jun-2009, om 21:19 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > > > In fact, I think that to say that "life, in reality, lasts for only > > one moment" is very misleading for that reason. It conflates > > conventional > > speech with ultimate speech AND concepts with real phenomena, as I > > see it. > ------ > N: I think differently, because of the variegated nature of citta. I > think it a great reminder. I said: in reality. When we are seeing, > visible object is seen and that is at that moment 'our' life. Nothing > else. Well, I would agree that at that moment, nothing else is experienced. But I would add, 'including any idea regarding 'our' or 'life''. > No need to think of conflating, why should we compare the > ultimate reality with conventional truth. Since you ask, my answer is 'to understand the texts'. As I see it, weneed to know (for example) that the (imaginary) arising and subsidingof a conventional object (e.g. the birth, life and death of a person)is not the same as the arising, existing and subsiding of a dhamma. Toconfuse (or conflate) the two seems to me to be a real problem and notan uncommon one. People can understand the impermanence of people andthings and believe they have insight into the impermanence of the threecharacteristics. Big mistake! "You see this cup; to me it is already broken". Is this vipassanaa? How do you know? I think you know because you've 'heard' the Dhamma,reflected on it and understand (at least theoretically) the differencebetween pa~n~natti and dhamma. > That does not help us. Well, here we disagree. > Better live from moment to moment. An interesting concept. But I think you'd agree that that isn't something 'we' can choose to do. Thanks for your patience--I hope I haven't crossed over into trolldom. mike #98511 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:29 pm Subject: Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear Nina I would appreciate if you said more on this classification on vicitta. Is it in Vibhanga or somewhere else? i really appreciate the Chapter 7 and all details on cittas. Hearing Dhamma in detailed way can help right understanding to arise very natural in daily life. I have the same feeling as you, hearing about varigated nature of cittas(vicittas). It is some kind of relief, if we realise that is only cittas that is varigated in its own way, that acts, speak and thinks in its own way. No Self at all anywhere. In general that's what i want to add to Survey Chapter 7 on citta, that we should never relay on words. Not try to find meaning, but read with courage. "Understand" Ajahn always remind us. There is only this present moment and only it can be understand by panna. By its own way, by its own veriageted way. That is not ours, we cannot choose what we want understand or make it arise. It will arise on its own variegated way. We can see only empty words and try to grasp the meaning or feel less confused about the whole Dhamma. But no one can stop this. As long as there will be conditons for such akusalas, they would arise. No one can stop this. And you right metta, just metta, that is a condition element that can arise, because we understand that is the citta that is variegated on its own way and no one there. No person who has akusala, or do something wrong. Thats really a good reminder. It makes pariyati grows on its own natural way, and some day it will condition patipati. very very natural. and we wont be seeing the world of people and thing, but just moha that conditions sankhara and sankhara that conditon vinnaya. But it can be grasp only by panna dhatu, that has to arise on conditions. When there is sati of eightfold path, then patticcasamupada is known. It is the moment when we understand the whole misery as it really is. just moha that confition this jatimarana dukkha. No people and things. When there is right understanding there is no outer world of people and things, but the world of nama and ruupa. I know it intelectualy, and its pariyatti, from time to time. But I found it myself as a condition to patipati. Thats my ekayano maggo, to see less Self, because Dhamma has been expalained. That is the 4 Truth,that is sacca nana. To know the way leading to Nibbana. The way of condtioned elements that perform their function. My best wishes Lukas > N: This is great. It helps us to be more tolerant, patient, gentle, > when we meet other viewpoints. If we see or hear disagreeable things > from others, and we remember the variegated nature of cittas of > different individuals, it can prevent us from being annoyed. We often > fail, but we can learn, slowly, as you said the other day. > > Nina. > #98512 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:58 pm Subject: Physical Phenomena (22) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (22) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas (continuation) Han: We have just started the chapter. The chapter deals with the eight inseparable ruupas (avinibbhoga ruupas), namely, solidity, cohesion, temperature, motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence (pathavii, aapo, tejo, vaayo, va.n.na, gandha, rasa, ojaa). Now, we will read more about va.n.na. -------------------- Colours are different because of different conditions [Note 1], but no matter what colour appears we should remember that what is experienced through the eye-door is the ruupa which is visible, visible object. The "Atthasaalinii" (II, Book II, Ch III, 318) gives the following definition of visible object. [Note 2] "... For all this matter has the characteristic of striking the eye, the function or property of being in relation of object to visual cognition, the manifestation of being the field of visual cognition, the proximate cause of the "four great essentials" (four Great Elements)." Visible object has as its proximate cause the four Great Elements because it cannot arise without them. However, when a characteristic of one of these four Great Elements, such as hardness or heat, is experienced, the accompanying visible object cannot be experienced at the same time. When there are conditions for seeing, visible object is experienced. When we close our eyes, there may be remembrance of the shape and form of a thing, but that is not the experience of visible object. The thinking of a "thing", no matter whether our eyes are closed or open, is different from the actual experience of what is visible. We may find it difficult to know what visible object is, since we are usually absorbed in paying attention to the shape and form of things. When we perceive the shape and form of something, for example of a chair, we think of a concept. A chair cannot impinge on the eyesense. Seeing does not see a chair, it only sees what is visible. Seeing and thinking occur at different moments. We do not think all the time, also moments of just seeing arise, moments that we do not pay attention to shape and form. Only one citta at a time arises experiencing one object, but different experiences arise closely one after the other. When one cannot distinguish them yet from each other, one believes that they occur all at the same time. If we remember that visible object is the ruupa which can be experienced through the eyesense, right understanding of this reality can be developed. [Note 1] See also Dhammasanganii #617. [Note 2] See also Visuddhimagga XIV, 54. ----------------------- Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas to be continued. with metta, Han #98513 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott, Scott wrote: > Dear Mike (and Istar the Catriarch), > > Regarding: > > M: "Well, I wouldn't have chosen the expression 'deliberate > practise'...I really think the expression's a kind of chimera...there > are a fair few activities in the texts that could certainly be described > (and sometimes, in my opinion, prescribed) as 'deliberate'--rather than, > say, 'ill-advised; chance, haphazard, hit-or-miss, random; aimless, > desultory, purposeless; hasty, hurried, rushed; abrupt, impetuous, > sudden; automatic, extemporaneous, impromptu, instinctive or > spontaneous'...In the usual sense it refers to pa.tipatti and that is > both a big subject and a particular one." > > Scott: Yes, I'm with you on the chimeric nature of the whole 'deliberate > practise/practice' thing. I'm thinking that whether the 'activity' > arises out of kusala or akusala would be more apposite. I'd say that usually, anything we'd refer to as 'an activity' would designate a vast number of consciousnesses/mental factors, wouldn't it? > An 'act' of > murder or theft could be very deliberate, for example. Sure, just like an act of devotion or generosity. As above--so actually, in the course of any act of murder or theft or devotion or generosity, there must occur countless consciousness/mental factors, including kusala, akusala and avyaakata ones. > I'd maybe add > that when it is kusala, it might naturally have qualities which are the > antonyms of the list above. The "it" you refer to is the conventional 'act', right? The list is of antonyms of 'deliberate'. So are you suggesting that 'when it (a conventional act) is kusala, it might naturally not be deliberate'? A conventional 'act' comprises too many consciousnesses/mental factors to count, so could hardly be said to be 'kusala' or akusala, I think. The attribution of 'deliberate' to the 'act' would also be a non-starter, as I see it. Same atathaparikappana*. > I'm still thinking of the distinction between 'an act' as a conventional > idea and the moment of kusala or akusala which serves as condition for > the very long and complex sequence of arisings and fallings-away which > go to 'form' and 'act'. Perhaps it would be more precise to stick to > 'pa.tipatti' and take care how it is rendered in English. I think as > well that since all things are conditioned - are very complexly > organized and not random - these words might not apply anyway. If you mean that the meaning(s) of 'practise' might be central, I'd agree. > M: "My point is that whether it's pa.tipatti or not, an activity that is > not ill-advised; chance...or spontaneous is not also necessarily > attended by wrong view or even self-perception. If it is, I've never > seen evidence of it from the texts. To put it another way, it seems to > me that if the Buddha had known that any deliberate activity (speaking > conventionally) was necessarily unwholesome, he might have mentioned it > at some point." > > Scott: These are good points. I'm going to review the U.P. - oh, here's > Miss Little again - and go over pa.tipatti. BAD kitty. > M: "Agreed, with the proviso that it's the cetasika that makes or breaks > the citta, if I'm not mistaken." > > Scott: Yeah, I think you're correct. > > M: "Sure--except that I'd say that 'whatever is being 'experienced'' > (through any of the sense doors) is vipaaka, while 'whatever is being > done'' is kamma. Both conditioned of course...I don't want to touch > 'deliberate practise' again, but as for a deliberate activity, I'd say > that it's a pa~n~natti, a designation--it wouldn't 'look like' anything > (I'm sure you didn't mean that?) since it isn't 'form cognizable through > the eye'; but a description (or prescription) of it in the texts might > precede (and or follow) the words, '...thus you should train yourself > [or yourselves]'." > > Scott: Yes, not literally 'look like something' but the phrase is > relevant due to the manner in which I think the 'thus you should train > yourself...' is normally misunderstood. I think it is taken quite > literally and the look of the act - the postures and all that - take on > a meaning and magical significance. Yes, let's take the circumambulation of stupas or the making offerings to bhikkhus, for example. Conventionally, these could be called 'practices'. But if actual pa.tipatti occurs at all during these activities, it is momentary and attended by pa~n~na (not avijjaa). So once again, conventional 'practice' vs. ultimate 'practice', as I see it--important not to confuse the two. > The identity, as it were, of 'the > buddhist' and the postural and behavioural concomitants imagined to, of > necessity, belong to this identity, seem all the rage. We shall stop > soon with the 'deliberate practise/practice.' Hear, hear. > M: Well, I take your point. But 'deliberate practise' (I dislike that > phrase more every time I use it--that's kusala, eh?) is just an idea. > 'In reality', there've been countless different mental > factors--friendliness, aversion, remorse,indifference, gladness, > stinginess etc. not to mention innumerable sense- and mind-door > processes arising and subsiding in the course of this event. If you're > suggesting that the whole event (or a substantial part of it) represents > miccha pa.tipatti--that's what we're really talking about,isn't > it?--then no, that's a dhamma that may or may not have arisen any number > of times in any few seconds of this 'event', as I see it. To say > otherwise seems to me to conflate dhammas with pa~n~nattis (the one > string to my bow, these days, it seems)." > > Scott: I like the above. Good food for thought. I think one point would > be that any thinking about 'an act' has to be more than tempered with > the knowledge that what we mistake for 'acts' are in fact dhammaa > arising and falling away in the moment, and in one moment and then > another, interspersed by many varied dhammaa in between. Well, yes. I think this is an example of how the 'popular teaching' must be perfectly consistent with (and in conformity to) 'the highest teaching' to be understood (rather than misunderstood). > I'll think more > about the conflation of dhamma and pa~n~natti - 'thinking' has a lot to > do with this tendency, I think. ;-) Sure--and the same problem again. 'Thinking' means one thing conventionally and another ultimately. Any occasion of the former refers to innumerable moments of mental activity, necessarily admixed with a great many other activities; the latter refers to a single moment, either (I THINK) of miccha sa"kappa (most likely, to say the least) or samma sa"nkappa (vanishingly rare). Obviously of huge importance (in my opinion) since the latter is a path factor. > M: "Different moments, I think. If your kitty's anything like ours, > plenty of both. Ours becomes more dear and more annoying almost with > each passing day (she's become a bit demented). I seldom regard her > dearness without recoiling in horror (not in the same instant, of course)." > > Scott: Cats seem a lot like people, as conceptual objects and the > dhammaa which come and go in relation to visible object that is. And not just visible--Istar's (aka Mini's) charms are also tactile and auditory (and compelling). If she were ugly, hard, cold and had an harsh, grating voice rather than being very pretty, silky-soft, and possessed of a perfectly mellifluous and expressive hybrid of meow and purr), I'm sure I'd feel no attachment to her whatever (or counterfeit friendliness etc.). Just like the hummingbirds, pretty much. mike *atathaparikappana: chimera; abbhutavatthu: chimerical. #98514 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike, (Azita & all), (Wonderful to have you actively posting again, btw, Mike....) --- On Mon, 15/6/09, m. nease wrote: > >S:...the text (Puggala-Pa~ n~natti) introduces 'puggala-pa~ n~natti' > with: > > "In what ways is there a designation of human types? > 1- Grouping of Human Types by One. > > "(1) One who is emancipated in season (samayavimutto) > (2) One who is emancipated out of season (asamayavimutto) > (3) One of perturbable nature.(kuppadhammo ) > (4) One of imperturbably nature.(akuppadhamm o) > (5) One liable to fall away (gotrabhuu). ....." > > So, in reality, are these people or cittas? .... M:> I think this is a false dilemma (no offense)--the question should be, 'are these pa~n~nattis or are they dhammas?'. As I see it, in the 'suttanta method', they're pa~n~nattis. In the 'abhidhamma method', they're dhammas. The pa~n~nattis are, in my opinion, meant to inspire confidence and attention to concepts that will--conditions allowing--lead to insight into dhammas. .... S: I would say that in either case (i.e. 'suttanta' method or 'abhidhamma method'), concepts (pa~n~natti) are used to point to dhammas. So,in the above example, they are pa~n~natti pointing to dhammas and, as you indicate, being used "to inspire confidence and attention to concepts that will--conditions allowing--lead to insight into dhammas." This would be an example of concepts as natural decisive support for right understanding, as I was discussing with Ann, I believe. The point was, however, that so often such teachings as the above are wrongly understood as referring to people as existing. I quoted it because of comments you'd made, such as these ones to Azita and me: ***** [> >>M: Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. >> azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? M:>>Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- Az:>> For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed > panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self > and therefore dukkha. M:> OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think nibbaana too. Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't beings pa.n.natti?.] ***** S: We all agree that 'beings' are pa~n~natti. But isn't the important point to understand is that there are actually only cittas, cetasikas and rupas in reality, however we dress them up? .... >>S: I'd suggest (with the help of the notes)these refer to: > (1) The path cittas of the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, i.e to > sotapatti-magga citta and so on. > (2) The path cittas of the sukkhavipassaka- khii.naasavas (Arahants who do > not practise Jhaana - comy) > (3) The cittas of the putthujana,sotapann a and sakadagami having attained > the 8 samaapattis (absorptions/ jhanas) > (4) The cittas of the anagami or arahant having attained the 8 samaapatis. > (5) The citta which is succeeded by the ariyan magga citta, referring > here, 'According to the Commentary.. ..to a person who has reached the > family, circle, or designation of Ariyas....'. Again, this is referring in > an absolute sense to a series of cittas only. M:> Of course. S: >> In other words, all sammuti sacca using various pa~n~natti, but always to designate and point again to absolute realities. M:> Not always to designate or to point, as I see it--often to inspire, exhort, explain, encourage, discourage and so on. .... S: I'm sure this is true, but with an underlying understanding of the absolute realities, I think. For example, the above quote might be used to inspire followers to develop insight and become enlightened, but without an understanding of namas and rupas, of conditioned dhammas, such an exhortation is quite useless. .... > S: Anyway, Mike, I know you've read all this before. Anyway, I do understand your point better now, Mike, along with the good toothpick example. I like the way you consider deeply for yourself and express your reflections. Thank you for sharing this with us. Metta, Sarah ======== #98515 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Mike, --- On Mon, 15/6/09, m. nease wrote: > > S: Yes, just like the butter-jar in the following: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75961 ... M:> I don't read the commentary to the first chapter of the > Kathavatthu (the 5th of the 7 Abhidhamma Pitaka texts) cited > above as saying that the > 'popular discourse' is a kind of code for 'highest-meaning > discourse', only that they are completely consistent (and of > course that the Buddha > knew that the designations referred to underlying > dhammas). I certainly don't dispute this. ... S: Yes, that's a better way of putting it. .... M:> Of course I'm also very familiar with the > Po.t.thapaada Sutta ("Dialogues, i 263"?) and certainly > understand and appreciate that too. It is completely > obvious to me (theoretically of > course) that when the Buddha spoke in terms of designations > and concepts, he was perfectly aware of the real phenomena > underlying them. ... S: Yes, he was perfectly aware of the these, as were those who were able to appreciate the essence of his teaching about such phenomena as anatta. ... M:> The subject at hand though is not the nature of the underlying > dhammas; it's the practical value of using the tooth stick, > with the intention of > encouraging its use. In other words, in this > particular discourse (as in so many others in the 'popular > discourses') the intention was not to > direct his audience's attention to present dhammas but > rather to encourage a particular activity (or restraint), as > I see it. .... S: Yes, that's fine. I'd add, but always with the development of understanding of realities involved whilst following such rules. Otherwise, if it weren't within the context of the development of satipatthana, a) it might as well be a course on 'Good Manners' and b)no one would be able to follow all the rules and keep perfect sila. .... > > > >S:In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu > (Points of Controversy - the > > Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates > Commentary) there > > is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The > following quote from > > the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41) <....>: <...> M:> I hope you don't imagine that I disagree with any of the > above or that I'm suggesting the existence of a > 'person'. I'm not. .... S: That's good and clear and what I'd have expected, of course. I think there was a little confusion, such as from the comments I just quoted in the last reply about 'person'. As I said before, I feel confident that MN117 is referring to mundane and supramundane insight *into realities*. Of course, it's true that without pariyatti, there'd be no such insights. ... > > S: Yes, but we have to use ordinary language. People > vary in how they > > find the truth palatable as the quote above indicates. > As Alberto > > suggested, for some it may be helpful to have daily > life examples, for > > others it's a condition to cling all the more to > beings, selves and > > butter-jars. > M:> I also appreciated and agree with Alberto's comments. > That isn't to say, though, that I believe that every word > the Buddha ever spoke was meant > to direct his audience's attention to real (so necessarily > present) phenomena. I don't believe that that was the > case. Sorry I didn't make > this point more clearly in the first place. > > Thanks for your patience. .... S: Thx for your patience too!! I agree with you that "not every word the Buddha ever spoke was meant to direct his audience's attention to real (so necessarily present) phenomena", however, I think the implication from the teachings is that the "real (so necessarily present) phenomena" is always to be known, no matter the topic or situation, just like for us now. Whether we're chatting about cats, surf or visible objects, sati and pa~n~naa have to arise at this very moment. This is where the 'natural' comes in for me. Thanks a lot for helping me to reflect further on this. As I always say to Phil (and anyone else), feel free to drop our threads anytime. Metta, Sarah ========= #98516 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- On Mon, 15/6/09, kenhowardau wrote: >As it turns out (having read Mike's follow-up post) my translation of "No attasanna no foul," was off the mark. Perfectly clear, but off the mark! :-) .... S: :-) No foul! (Mike, hope I got that right:)). .... K:>You may remember from former conversations that I am never confident about understanding the written word. Take, for example, the quote you have given here: ----- S: >> "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world." (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term `person' is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense." ------ K:>Having been taught about 'concepts and realities' I can understand the sutta quote well enough, but the second (commentary) part leaves me scratching my head. .... S: With regard to the written word, I think it's just that you pause and consider it more carefully than others of us. I agree that the second part is rather ambiguous and am not sure if that's the translator or us. Scott or Connie can probably assist with the Pali. Let me try to rephrase it: "What is meant here is: even when there is no reference to namas and rupas or khandhas, words such as 'people' are to be understood as merely common expressions used for convenience." ..... K:> BTW, apologies for my silence in recent days. There are heaps of replies in my drafts folder, but none seem to be making it to the list. Blame it on conditions and accumulations. :-) ... S: Suddenly the list is awash with apologies, lol! How about we tackle those conditions and accumulations and you give me the key or password to your drafts folder? I'm sure there's a treasure trove waiting for us all to discover. It must be a lawyer-kind-of-thing - the drafts folder. Alternatively, if you don't trust me with the key, how about trying for a while without a drafts folder - sharing the 'raw' thoughts as those of us 'on the run' do? Metta, Sarah ========= #98517 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Mike, --- On Mon, 15/6/09, Phil wrote: >Ph: Sorry for butting in again, but may I suggest that it would be helpful to consider those suttas in which the Buddha withheld the deep teaching "particular to the Buddha (Buddhas?)" until he knew that the listener was ready? I made an unsuccesful attempt to round up those suttas a while back, but I recall there was one where the Buddha taught a leper on the roadside and started with some topics that were not "particular to the Buddha." I can't recall offhand how the sutta describe those topics (generosity? result of deeds?) but I am pretty sure that for your current discussion it would be good to consider those topics and why it is said that the Buddha emphasized them until he knew that the listener was ready for the deep paramattha Dhamma. .... S: To encourage Mike (and you)to pursue this further - as I think he asked for one text to discusss - here's the ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html "....He saw Suppabuddha the leper sitting in the assembly, and on seeing him the thought occurred to him, "This person here is capable of understanding the Dhamma." So, aiming at Suppabuddha the leper, he gave a step-by-step talk, i.e., a talk on giving, a talk on virtue, a talk on heaven; he declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensual passions, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when he saw that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elated, & bright, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye, in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." " This is one of Han's favourite topics too, if I recall.... Metta, Sarah ======= #98518 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Howard (98454) > =============== > The extent to which we come into contact with "good people" in this > lifetime is a matter of kamma/vipaka rather than intentional action on our part. > ------------------------------------------ > First of all it is not a matter only of kamma, and certainly not only > of our *own* kamma. Moreover, kamma IS intention and intention IS kamma. > =============== Yes, kamma is intention. But the kamma/intention that brings the result of contact with good people in this lifetime is kamma performed at a time unrelated in conventional terms to the occurring of that result (and most likely in a previous life, as I understand it). Any intention formed in this life to associate with good people is surely not kamma of a particularly high level, even assuming that intention to be a wholesome one (which is not necessarily the case). > =============== > The extent to which we hear the teachings explained in a way that is > appropriate for us is also a matter of vipaka. > --------------------------------------------- > And vipaka is a matter of kamma, and kamma is intention. > =============== Similarly, the kamma/intention that results in our hearing the teachings explained in a way that is appropriate for us is not the intention to experience that result, but is kamma performed at a time (again, most likely in a previous life) unrelated in conventional terms to that result. > =============== > I understand the expression "practice of the dhamma" to refer to an > arising moment of satipatthana/insight. > --------------------------------------------- > Yes, I know. You have a predilection to "funny speak." ;-)) > =============== ;-)) But as someone who considers choice of language to be of considerable importance, you do I'm sure appreciate any attempt at precision no matter how "funny" the expression may seem. So let me repeat that, to my understanding, references in the texts to the practice of the dhamma refer to actual moments of satipatthana/insight and not to the undertaking of a specified activity with a view to bringing about moments of satipatthana/insight. > =============== > This certainly is not something that can be deliberately done. > ---------------------------------------------- > When you define something in a manner that guarantees a certain result > (such as deliberative activity with regard to it being impossible), that > result certainly will then pertain to the phenomenon so defined. I simply > think that your definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't define the practice > urged by the Buddha, which was a matter of actual choice. Some followers DID > choose to seek out "roots of trees," and some did not. > =============== Among the followers who became enlightened were those who sought out "roots of trees" and those who did not. It is not the adoption of a particular form of lifestyle (forest-dwelling monk, monastery-dwelling monk, or householder) or activity (doing whatever at the roots of trees) that leads to enlightenment but the understanding of the "this/that" conditionality taught by the Buddha. This understanding can be developed regardless of one's current lifestyle or activity. > =============== > It happens by its own conditions. > -------------------------------------------- > It doesn't HAVE conditions that may just happen to occur. Rather, the > conditions are created largely by human intention and intentional actions. > It is these that direct our lives for the most part. An unbiased reading of > the suttas displays that again and again and again. But, Jon, of course > I'm not writing this to persuade you. It seems that your mind is made up, and > you will not see the plain words of the suttas no matter how often they > are repeated. You see more deeply, it seems you think, whereas I think that > you see what you wish to believe, not considering that you might be > mistaken. I'm writing this for others who might be more willing to look and see, > putting aside their beliefs. > =============== The proposition that the conditions for the development of insight are "created largely by human intention and intentional actions" is not one that I readily recognise from my reading of the texts. If you have any sutta passages that support this, those others may be interested to see them ;-)) > =============== > Hoping this explains my perspective. > ----------------------------------------------- > :-) I DO understand it. > =============== Well at least I've managed to set it out clearly (I am of course not expecting to find agreement ;-)). Jon #98519 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Suan (98486) > =============== > Jon and KS Folks not only fail to 'see the plain words of the suttas', > but also are blind to the commentaries of those suttas, for example, > "Commentary on Mahasatipa.t.thaana Sutta", the English translation of > which has been done by Soma Thera and is available online. As far as > Soma Thera is concerned, Satipa.t.thaana Sutta is an instruction manual > of meditation practice. Please read his introduction to his commendable > work. > =============== That of course is the translator's opinion. Do you have any "plain words of the suttas" to support the view that "Satipa.t.thaana Sutta is an instruction manual of meditation practice"? > =============== > Here is the importance of choice and purpose from Soma Thera's > translation on "Clear Comprehension (Sampajaa)". > > "There are these four kinds of comprehension: clear comprehension of > purpose [satthaka sampajaa], of suitability [sappaya > sampajaa], of resort [gocara sampajaa], and of non-delusion > [asammoha sampajaa]." > =============== I'd be interested to know what you understand by the 4 clear comprehensions and in particular the clear comprehension of purpose. To my understanding, sampajanna refers to the mental factor (cetasika) of panna. > =============== > > The above commentary passage unambiguously exposes Sarah, Jon and KS > Folks' wrong view and wrong speech about purpose and purposeful actions > to which they object. > =============== If you think I 'object' to purposeful actions then you have misunderstood. For the record, purposeful action is a fact of (conventional) life, and I have no objection to that. The question for discussion, however, is the extent to which the development of insight as taught by the Buddha is a matter of performing particular kinds of purposeful action. If you have views on this, please feel free to share them (preferably with quotes from the texts to support). Jon #98520 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) sarahprocter... Dear Jessica, (Just to add a little more to this, as it's such an important topic imho....) --- On Sun, 14/6/09, jessicamui wrote: >Dear Nina, Han and Sarah, Thank you very much for answering my questions. I went away for a few days, and when I came back, I tried to check the thread following the same title, but couldn't find any answers. so I re-posted. I apologize for overlooking the postings. ... S: No need to apologize - sometimes, the subject heading is changed and then the thread at the bottom on the homepage no longer works. As I mentioned, it's worth trying the 'search' if you suspect this may have happened. ... >Now I have the following related questions: >Sarah also answered: >> The thought or concept does not arise because it is 'imagined' or > 'thought'. It is not a reality. >J: then what conditions the concept to arise ? ... S: It doesn't exist in an absolute sense so it doesn't arise. Like when we're asleep, dreaming occurs and there are all sorts of images. However, they aren't real - it's only the mind-door cittas (and cetasikas) which are arising and falling away with bhavanga cittas arising and falling away in between. It depends on sa~n~naa (perception/memory) in particular as to what ideas or imagery will be marked from moment to moment. When we're awake, it's much the same, only there are sense door processes in between the sets of mind door processes as well. .... >It arises as a mental object, independent of any citta ? It is not any one part of the 5 aggregates ? We know that thoughts and concepts are mental formations, it is difficult to think that they don't belong to the nama group. ... S: As Nina clarified, concepts are not a khandha, not sankhara khandha, not namas. This is a common misconception. As Alberto clarified, sankhara khandha includes the 50 cetasikas only, other than sa~n~naa and vedana. Without citta, there can be no concept thought about or imagined. Now, there can be awareness and understanding of thinking or seeing or visible object. They can be directly known as objects of satipa.t.thaana. Concepts can never be known - only thought about. So they are not objects of insight or the path of vipassanaa. Please let us know whether this is beginning to making sense - your questions and comments are most helpful for everyone. Metta, Sarah ========= #98521 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now sarahprocter... Hi Connie (& Scott), --- On Sun, 14/6/09, connie wrote: >Connie: Yeah, "intention" usually seems to be another of those confusing "daily life situation" with "conditioning" or "dhammic relations" (if you will, haha) sorta thinkings; but cetanaa's a universal cetasika. You ever wonder how people can say they did anything "inadvertently" when of course, there's pa~ncadvaaraavajjan a throughout the waking day? Then "intentional" receiving, investigating and determining & finally, javana - kusala, akusala, phala or kiriya, as the case may be, .... S: Excuse me butting in, but what's *phala* javana? ... >but statistically speaking? "'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas" - Yowsa. Since receiving and investigating are vipakas, it's the the determining that sets the tone? Yes, (a)yoniso manasikaara, I think. - ... S: Hmmm, I wouldn't quite put it like that. Determing is just one citta....OK, a 'rudder' as Htoo used to remind us. However, I think it's more accurate to say it's the javanas, the kusala, akusala (or kiriya) accumulations that really set the tone, conditioned by all the previous habits and tendencies. (A)yoniso manasikaara referring to the whole set of determining + javanas. .... >What's sankappa again? PTS... (snip): VbhA 117. Sankappa is defd at DhsA 124 as (cetaso) abhiniropana, i. e. application of the mind. See on term also Cpd. 238. .... S: Vitakka cetasika. As Nina, said, 'intention' is a misleading translation, (though 'thinking' or 'thought' is problematic too....) ... >O! and thanks for the sutta paa.li - I can stop 'intending' to look that up now. ... S: What's that popular saying? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Now, that shows a clear lack of understanding of kusala and kamma, doesn't it? Metta, Sarah ======= #98522 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 1. sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, You wrote to Nina: --- On Sun, 14/6/09, szmicio wrote: >I like reminders about present moment. Hovewer, only present moment can be known, considering the whole Dhamma is very helpful. And even those details can be helpful. I remember my old discusion with Connie about Dispeller(navattabb arammana) and ruupas from Vibhanga. >I am forgeting what i've read very fast, and thats the way we should read, not to try grasp or try to understand. Just let forget it all what we read. >The only way for me to know it again is to rise another question. I like the way mind forget and remembers things. there is so less self in it. ... S: Yes, all anatta, (or as Mike would say 'no attasa~n~naa, no foul'). I find the same - details get forgotten. What is not really understood gets forgotten, if not now then later.... This is why the teaching has to come back to what can be directly understood now... Good comments, Metta, Sarah ======= #98523 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now sarahprocter... Dear Scott(Connie, Suan & all), I liked your commments below on the passage a lot - very interesting. --- On Sat, 13/6/09, Scott wrote: >>c: "Indeed! It's pure old school buddhism: connected discourses, Nandana: 33 'How many days can one practise the ascetic life / If one does not rein in one's mind? / One would founder with each step / Under the control of one's intentions.' " >Scott: I like this one, connie, thanks. SN 1, 17 (7) Dukkarasutta. m Katiha.m careyya saama~n~na.m, citta.m ce na nivaaraye; Pade pade visiideyya, sa.nkappaana. m vasaanugo 'ti. Scott: The commentary is given in Bh. Bodhi's translation, concerning 'pade pade' (p.350): "In each object(aaramma. ne aaramma.ne); for whenever a defilement arises in relation to any object, it is just there that one founders (visidati). But the phrase can also be interpreted by way of the modes of deportment (iriyaapatha) ; if a defilement arises while one is walking (standing, sitting, or lying down), it is just there that one founders. Intentions [Sarah: or thinking] (sa.nkappa) should be understood by way of the three wrong intentions, i.e., of sensuality, ill will, and harming." Citta~nce na nivaarayeti yadi ayoniso uppanna.m citta.m na nivaareyya, kati ahaani saama~n~naṃ careyya? Ekadivasampi na careyya. Cittavasiko hi sama.nadhamma. m kaatu.m na sakkoti. Pade padeti aaramma.ne aaramma,ne. Aaramma.na~nhi idha padanti adhippeta.m. Yasmi.m yasmi.m hi aaramma.ne kileso uppajjati, tattha tattha baalo visiidati naama. Iriyaapathapadampi va.t.tati. Gamanaadiisu hi yattha yattha kileso uppajjati, tattha tattheva visiidati naama. Sa.nkappaananti kaamasa.nkappaadiin a.m. >Scott: There's a lot in this! I consider that whether in relation to a given object, or in any of the four modes of deportment - no object or posture excepted - the moment of the arising of the kilesas is the end of 'practise'. And 'practise' is the presence of and concomitant function of whatever mental factors arise with citta in the moment. More support for the case against any thoughts about 'I practise'. 'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas, and has nothing to do with a person intending or planning to do anything. ... Sarah: Momentary practise only....no one to do anything. Suan, I wonder if you have any comments on this passage above and Scott's (pertinent, imho) comments? Metta, Sarah ======= #98524 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:07 pm Subject: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no 3 szmicio Dear friends ---------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98525 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:19 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, When one begins to develop right understanding of nma and rpa there cannot yet be the direct realization of their arising and falling away. First their different characteristics have to be clearly known, nma has to be known as nma, different from rpa, and rpa has to be known as rpa, different from nma. Understanding develops stage by stage and it is at a later stage that the arising and falling away of the reality which appears can be directly known. However, even the sotpanna who has realized nma and rpa as they are, as not self, has not eradicated all clinging and ignorance. Only the arahat has eradicated all kinds of clinging, all ignorance and conceit. When we read this sutta we can be reminded to begin to study with awareness the nma and rpa which appear now. Since it is a long way to realize their impermanence we should not delay the development of understanding of them. You were wondering how there can be different characters of people, a personality, if there is no self. There are accumulations, tendencies which are accumulated in the citta. Cittas arise and fall away but the citta which falls away conditions the next citta and that is why accumulations can be carried on from one citta to the next one. That is why we can notice that people have different inclinations, that they behave in different ways. Our behaviour is conditioned, it is not self. We cling to our personality, to the image we have of ourselves. We want to be good, we cling to our good deeds. We have not realized that there is no self, no matter kusala citta or akusala citta arises. We do not possess kusala, it cannot stay. It only arises for a moment and then akusala citta is bound to arise. Because of our ignorance we do not even notice when there is kusala citta and when akusala citta. For example, when we give something away with generosity there are kusala cittas which can be accompanied by pleasant feeling. Very shortly afterwards akusala cittas with attachment may arise and these can also be accompanied by pleasant feeling. We may, for instance, think, I did this very well; I have really achieved something; I did this. If there is no awareness we do not know the different moments of citta and the different moments of feeling. It seems that there is only one kind of feeling, pleasant feeling, which lasts, and it seems that it is kusala all the time. Thus we take for wholesome what is unwholesome. It is essential to have right understanding of kusala and akusala, otherwise kusala cannot be developed. ****** Nina. #98526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now nilovg Dear Mike, Op 16-jun-2009, om 21:51 heeft m_nease het volgende geschreven: > N: No need to think of conflating, why should we compare the > > ultimate reality with conventional truth. > > M: Since you ask, my answer is 'to understand the texts'. As I see it, > we need to know (for example) that the (imaginary) arising and > subsidingof a conventional object (e.g. the birth, life and death of a > person)is not the same as the arising, existing and subsiding of a > dhamma. To confuse (or conflate) the two seems to me to be a real > problem and not an uncommon one. People can understand the > impermanence > of people and things and believe they have insight into the > impermanence > of the three characteristics. Big mistake! ----- N: Yes, true. They mistake thinking of the story of impermanence with direct understanding of the characteristics of realities. ------- > > M: "You see this cup; to me it is already broken". Is this > vipassanaa? How > do you know? I think you know because you've 'heard' the > Dhamma,reflected on it and understand (at least theoretically) the > difference between pa~n~natti and dhamma. > > >N: That does not help us. ------- > M:Well, here we disagree. ------ N: I mean that conventional truth is obvious and we need not explain much about it. But ultimate truth is more difficult to understand, it needs a lot of explanation and consideration. And it is so true. > > > Better live from moment to moment. ---------- > M: An interesting concept. But I think you'd agree that that isn't > something 'we' can choose to do. ---------- N: Before we know we are trapped again. I said the other day that often we fail, and then I am thinking of 'me' who fails, whereas it is the akusala citta. So we cannot be reminded enough to consider citta, cetasika and ruupa. ------- You gave us such a lively description of your cat, I like to repeat it: M: And not just visible--Istar's (aka Mini's) charms are also tactile and auditory (and compelling). If she were ugly, hard, cold and had an harsh, grating voice rather than being very pretty, silky-soft, and possessed of a perfectly mellifluous and expressive hybrid of meow and purr), I'm sure I'd feel no attachment to her whatever (or counterfeit friendliness etc.). Just like the hummingbirds, pretty much. -------- Nina. #98527 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, Op 16-jun-2009, om 1:44 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > N: The citta which thinks of a concept is real and it arises. The > concept is not an ultimate reality; it does not arise, it is merely > an object citta thinks of. Citta can think of realities and also of > that which is not a reality. > > J: does the concept belongs of one of the 18 elements ? It is an > aramana that arise in the mind by its own ? As you know, citta's > function is to know. It is conditioned by the object that arise in > the mind-door. > > ---------- N: No, it is not an element, a dhaatu, only realities are elements. Citta is conditioned by any object by way of object-condition. Citta could not arise without experiencing an object, no matter this is experienced through a sense-door, through the mind-door or without any doorway (the bhavangacitta), no matter it is a reality or a concept that does not arise. --------- > > J: I speak from my own experience: when I woke up this morning, the > first thing that the mind thinks about is a email that I sent last > night. So the object it thinks of seems conditioned by karma and/or > repetition conditioning to me. It cannot think of things that it > hasn't experienced before. Rose or kasina are all things that the > mind is extremely familiar with. In meditation, I have mental image > appears and passes away without associated thoughts. ------- N: It is not conditioned by kamma, good or bad deeds that produce results. You speak about what is experienced before, yes, it is sa~n~naa that remembers the Email you wrote, it remembers all sorts of concepts. It seems that the concept arises and falls away with the citta that thinks of it, but, as Sarah also explained, it is not the concept that arises and falls away, just the citta that thinks of it. ------- > > J: The reason that I'm interested in the "concept" because it is > usually wrong - don't represent the true reality. It is something > that we cannot function without, but I think it conditions moha if > not knowing the nature of it. ------ N: We need concepts in daily life, but on account of these objects not only moha, also lobha and dosa frequently arise. We cannot speak of a true nature of concepts, they do not have the three general characteristics of impermanence, etc. But it is important to know the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. Basic for the development of vipassanaa. ------- > > J: Apart from the Abdhidhamma, did Buddha mention the pannatti in > the sutta ? ----- N:Compare the texts where he mentioned the two kinds of truth: conventional truth and ultimate truth, and here I mention the text used by Sarah recently: < From the Potthapada Sutta: ....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them, (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) And more about these in the Commentaries. Nina. #98528 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/16/2009 10:34:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (98454) > =============== > The extent to which we come into contact with "good people" in this > lifetime is a matter of kamma/vipaka rather than intentional action on our part. > ------------------------------------------ > First of all it is not a matter only of kamma, and certainly not only > of our *own* kamma. Moreover, kamma IS intention and intention IS kamma. > =============== Yes, kamma is intention. But the kamma/intention that brings the result of contact with good people in this lifetime is kamma performed at a time unrelated in conventional terms to the occurring of that result (and most likely in a previous life, as I understand it). -------------------------------------- Well, I don't know. Some vipaka arises after aeons and some is immediate, and there are all the intermediate possibilities. Kamma is complex, and few details are available. ----------------------------------------- Any intention formed in this life to associate with good people is surely not kamma of a particularly high level, even assuming that intention to be a wholesome one (which is not necessarily the case). ----------------------------------------- I can guess too, Jon. ;-) ----------------------------------------- > =============== > The extent to which we hear the teachings explained in a way that is > appropriate for us is also a matter of vipaka. > --------------------------------------------- > And vipaka is a matter of kamma, and kamma is intention. > =============== Similarly, the kamma/intention that results in our hearing the teachings explained in a way that is appropriate for us is not the intention to experience that result, but is kamma performed at a time (again, most likely in a previous life) unrelated in conventional terms to that result. > =============== > I understand the expression "practice of the dhamma" to refer to an > arising moment of satipatthana/insight. > --------------------------------------------- > Yes, I know. You have a predilection to "funny speak." ;-)) > =============== ;-)) But as someone who considers choice of language to be of considerable importance, you do I'm sure appreciate any attempt at precision no matter how "funny" the expression may seem. ---------------------------------------- I get that it's not a matter of mere choice of language but of expressing your understanding. It is simply quite far from my understanding. ---------------------------------------- So let me repeat that, to my understanding, references in the texts to the practice of the dhamma refer to actual moments of satipatthana/insight and not to the undertaking of a specified activity with a view to bringing about moments of satipatthana/insight. > =============== > This certainly is not something that can be deliberately done. > ---------------------------------------------- > When you define something in a manner that guarantees a certain result > (such as deliberative activity with regard to it being impossible), that > result certainly will then pertain to the phenomenon so defined. I simply > think that your definition is idiosyncratic and doesn't define the practice > urged by the Buddha, which was a matter of actual choice. Some followers DID > choose to seek out "roots of trees," and some did not. > =============== Among the followers who became enlightened were those who sought out "roots of trees" and those who did not. ------------------------------------------ Examples of the latter? My assumption is that whoever you might come up with were folks who had lots of "tree work" as background, an activity the Buddha always associated with urgency. ------------------------------------------ It is not the adoption of a particular form of lifestyle (forest-dwelling monk, monastery-dwelling monk, or householder) or activity (doing whatever at the roots of trees) that leads to enlightenment but the understanding of the "this/that" conditionality taught by the Buddha. ------------------------------------------- Jon! I'm not talking about lifestyle, but of intentional practice. And, BTW, the bhikkhu's "lifestyle" was certainly tailored by the Buddha towards progress. -------------------------------------------- This understanding can be developed regardless of one's current lifestyle or activity. ----------------------------------------------- If by 'regardless' you mean "in spite of," I agree that this is the case. But some conditions are more supportive than others. ---------------------------------------------- > =============== > It happens by its own conditions. > -------------------------------------------- > It doesn't HAVE conditions that may just happen to occur. Rather, the > conditions are created largely by human intention and intentional actions. > It is these that direct our lives for the most part. An unbiased reading of > the suttas displays that again and again and again. But, Jon, of course > I'm not writing this to persuade you. It seems that your mind is made up, and > you will not see the plain words of the suttas no matter how often they > are repeated. You see more deeply, it seems you think, whereas I think that > you see what you wish to believe, not considering that you might be > mistaken. I'm writing this for others who might be more willing to look and see, > putting aside their beliefs. > =============== The proposition that the conditions for the development of insight are "created largely by human intention and intentional actions" is not one that I readily recognise from my reading of the texts. If you have any sutta passages that support this, those others may be interested to see them ;-)) -------------------------------------------- Too big of a task. There are LOADS of examples. But you can start at the very beginning of the Dhammapada: - - - - - - - - - - Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox. Mind is the forerunner of (all good) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, AFFECTION follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves. ---------------------------------------------- > =============== > Hoping this explains my perspective. > ----------------------------------------------- > :-) I DO understand it. > =============== Well at least I've managed to set it out clearly (I am of course not expecting to find agreement ;-)). ----------------------------------------------- LOLOL! Your non-expectation has been met! ----------------------------------------------- Jon ============================ With metta, Howard Kamma /"A fool is characterized by his/her actions. A wise person is characterized by his/her actions. It's through the activities of one's life that one's discernment shines. "A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a fool. Which three? Bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct... "A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a wise person. Which three? Good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct... "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will avoid the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a fool. We will undertake & maintain the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a wise person.' That's how you should train yourselves."/ (From Anguttara Nikaya 3.2) #98529 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "I'd say that usually, anything we'd refer to as 'an activity' would designate a vast number of consciousnesses/mental factors, wouldn't it?...in the course of any act of murder or theft or devotion or generosity, there must occur countless consciousness/mental factors, including kusala, akusala and avyaakata ones." Scott: Agreed. This has implications for the way in which things are considered. I think that the common, ordinary way of thinking of this wrongly considers the whole 'act' - the illusory puppet show - as kusala in its entirety. This misunderstands the meaning of kusala, in particular, that kusala designates a given moment. While at some point in the entire sequence there can be kusala moments, these will be interspersed, as you say with many other dhammaa. Thoughts of 'I give' are based on conventional designations and thoughts about concepts. M: "The 'it' you refer to is the conventional 'act', right? The list is of antonyms of 'deliberate'. So are you suggesting that 'when it (a conventional act) is kusala, it might naturally not be deliberate'? A conventional 'act' comprises too many consciousnesses/mental factors to count, so could hardly be said to be 'kusala' or akusala, I think. The attribution of 'deliberate' to the 'act' would also be a non-starter, as I see it. Same atathaparikappana*." Scott: I'm not sure what I was referring to, but I think 'it' was that nasty, so-called 'deliberate act' and I agree with the above. Conventionally, say, I give a donation to the local homeless shelter. Since a myriad of dhammaa would have arisen and fallen away over the course of such an 'act' it could hardly be said that the 'act' was kusala. The 'act' as a conventionally considered whole is not synonymous with the giving is it? M: "Yes, let's take the circumambulation of stupas or the making offerings to bhikkhus, for example. Conventionally, these could be called 'practices'. But if actual pa.tipatti occurs at all during these activities, it is momentary and attended by pa~n~na (not avijjaa). So once again, conventional 'practice' vs. ultimate 'practice', as I see it--important not to confuse the two." Scott: This would suggest that it is not necessary to circumambulate a stupa or offer to bhikkhus. That is, one needn't think that one must go out of one's way to go to a stupa and walk around it or find a monk and make an offering, nor that doing so has any special significance in and of itself. Where is the kusala in these conventionally designated 'acts'? A rationalisation often encountered seems to be that such acts somehow amount to someone - not ultimately real - creating conditions for kusala to arise. And this doesn't happen since conditions cannot be manipulated by a conceptual entity. Why the instructions to do so, do you think? You're considering this, I think, in other threads where the idea of 'conceptual wisdom' or something is being discussed M: "...'Thinking' means one thing conventionally and another ultimately. Any occasion of the former refers to innumerable moments of mental activity, necessarily admixed with a great many other activities; the latter refers to a single moment, either (I THINK) of miccha sa"kappa (most likely, to say the least) or samma sa"nkappa (vanishingly rare). Obviously of huge importance (in my opinion) since the latter is a path factor." Scott: In considering these things it becomes clear to me that I put so much weight on what I think conventionally, as do we all, including what I think about the Dhamma. Some of what I think conventionally must be wrong, and some must be right, but what would such a statement mean? Sincerely, Scott. #98530 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "I liked your commments below on the passage a lot - very interesting...Momentary practise only....no one to do anything." Scott: Nope. No one to do anything. No one to arrange conditions for something to happen as a result. No one at all. And the moment of 'pratice' is so very brief. When someone wants so much to be 'a buddhist' this is such a hard pill to swallow! Sincerely, Scott. #98531 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:41 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Jon, Howard, Robert E, Sarah How are you? "That of course is the translator's opinion. Do you have any "plain words of the suttas" to support the view that "Satipa.t.thaana Sutta is an instruction manual of meditation practice"?" Yes. The very Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam supports the translator's opinion. The commentary on this Suttam also supports his opinion. In other words, Aacariya Buddhaghosa also regarded this great Suttam as an instruction manual of meditation practice. Please see Sections 105, and 106, Uddesakathaava.n.nanaa, Satipa.t.thaanasuttava.n.nanaa, Majjhimanikaayo. For example, 106. "Apica tasmim janapade catasso parisaa pakatiyaava satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogamanuyuttaa viharanti, antamaso daasakammakara parijanaapi satipa.t.thaanappa.tisamyuttameva katham kathenti. Udakatitthasuttakantana.t.thaanaadiisupi niratthakakathaa naama na pava ttati. Sace kaaci itthii "amma tvam kataram satipa.t.thaanabhaavanam manasikarosii"ti pucchitaa "na kicii"ti vadati. Tam garahanti "dhiratthu tava jiivitam, jiivamaanaapi tvam matasadisaa"ti. Atha nam "maa daani puna evamakaasii"ti ovaditvaa aataram satipa.t.thaanam ugga.nhaapenti. Yaa pana "aham asukam satipa.t.thaanam manasikaromii"ti vadati. Tassaa "saadhu saadh"ti saadhukaaram datvaa "tava jiivitam sujiivitam, tvam naama manussattam pattaa, tavatthaaya sammaasambuddho uppanno"ti-aadiihi pasamsanti. Na kevalacettha manussajaatiyaayeva satipa.t.thaanamanasikaarayuttaa, te nissaaya viharantaa tiracchaanagataapi." I could also point to the key indicators in this very Suttam that support Soma Thera's opinion, but I do not think that you would be readily convinced as you do not read Pali. Venerable Aananda also regarded the Buddha's teachings in this Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam as instructions. When I have spare time to reopen the thread "Are KS Folks less intelligent than monkeys?", I could cite relevant "plain words of the suttas". Seriously, though, Jon, you need to read Satipa.t.thaana Suttam more carefully as I noticed that you misunderstood this great Suttam in more than one ways. Please also download Soma Thera's translation of the commentary on this Suttam. See if reading of it can improve your understanding of this great Sutam. Jon also asked: "I'd be interested to know what you understand by the 4 clear comprehensions and in particular the clear comprehension of purpose." Suan answered: I accept what Buddhaghosa explained on the issue in details. Put it another way, I have no personal opinion on the issue. Again, you need to consult the relevant sections in the commentary. Whether or not you can accept Buddhaghosa's explanations on the issue is entirely up to you. Jon also wrote: "If you think I 'object' to purposeful actions then you have misunderstood. For the record, purposeful action is a fact of (conventional) life, and I have no objection to that." Suan replied: I am glad to know that you do not object to purposeful actions. In this case, you appeared to disagree with Sarah who objected to purposeful actions in voicing her objection to formal meditation practice. But, Jon, you also need to accept purposeful actions in the ultimate sense (paramatthena) as well. Otherwise, you would lose your status as a Theravada Buddhist. Jon also asked: "The question for discussion, however, is the extent to which the development of insight as taught by the Buddha is a matter of performing particular kinds of purposeful action. If you have views on this, please feel free to share them (preferably with quotes from the texts to support)." Suan replied: I do not have personal opinions or views on the issue. If we read more carefully the Suttas, the Buddha taught in many places that development of insight must be based on the formal practices of Siila and Samaadhi, both of which are purposeful actions. For example, see Section 23, Ja.taasuttam, Sagaathaavaggo, Samyuttanikaayo. 23. "Anto ja.taa bahi ja.taa, ja.taaya ja.titaa pajaa; tam tam gotama pucchaami, ko imam vija.taye ja.tan"ti. "Siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapao, cittam paaca bhaavayam; aataapii nipako bhikkhu, so imam vija.taye ja.tam. Third party translations of the above Pali verse are available online. I think your household owns different editions of Samyuttanikaaya in English. You can also consult the English translation of Visuddhimagga, (Path of Purification, Path of Purity). The very opening Section 1 of Visuddhimaggo starts with "Siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapao, cittam paaca bhaavayam;" Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98533 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) jonoabb Hi Suan Thanks for the reply. Would you mind giving translations of the Pali passages quotd in your post since, as you correctly observe, I do not read Pali (and nor do the majority of the members of the list). Thanks. Jon > Please see Sections 105, and 106, Uddesakathaava.n.nanaa, > Satipa.t.thaanasuttava.n.nanaa, Majjhimanikaayo. For example, > > > > 106. "Apica tasmim janapade catasso parisaa pakatiyaava > satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogamanuyuttaa viharanti, antamaso > daasakammakara > > parijanaapi satipa.t.thaanappa.tisamyuttameva katham kathenti. > Udakatitthasuttakantana.t.thaanaadiisupi niratthakakathaa naama na > pava > > ttati. Sace kaaci itthii "amma tvam kataram > satipa.t.thaanabhaavanam manasikarosii"ti pucchitaa "na > kicii"ti vadati. Tam garahanti > > "dhiratthu tava jiivitam, jiivamaanaapi tvam > matasadisaa"ti. Atha nam "maa daani puna evamakaasii"ti > ovaditvaa aataram satipa.t.thaanam > > ugga.nhaapenti. Yaa pana "aham asukam satipa.t.thaanam > manasikaromii"ti vadati. Tassaa "saadhu saadh"ti > saadhukaaram datvaa "tava > > jiivitam sujiivitam, tvam naama manussattam pattaa, tavatthaaya > sammaasambuddho uppanno"ti-aadiihi pasamsanti. Na kevalacettha > > manussajaatiyaayeva satipa.t.thaanamanasikaarayuttaa, te nissaaya > viharantaa tiracchaanagataapi." > > > If we read more carefully the Suttas, the Buddha taught in many places > that development of insight must be based on the formal practices of > Siila and Samaadhi, both of which are purposeful actions. > > > > For example, see Section 23, Ja.taasuttam, Sagaathaavaggo, > Samyuttanikaayo. > > > > 23. "Anto ja.taa bahi ja.taa, ja.taaya ja.titaa pajaa; > > tam tam gotama pucchaami, ko imam vija.taye ja.tan"ti. > > "Siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapao, cittam > paaca bhaavayam; > > aataapii nipako bhikkhu, so imam vija.taye ja.tam. > > #98534 From: "Dr. Han Tun" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:15 pm Subject: Physical Phenomena (23) hantun1 Physical Phenomena (23) Dear All, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena by Nina. Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas (continuation) Han: This chapter deals with the eight inseparable ruupas (avinibbhoga ruupas), namely, solidity, cohesion, temperature, motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence (pathavii, aapo, tejo, vaayo, va.n.na, gandha, rasa, ojaa). We have read colour. We will now read odour. -------------------- As we have seen, odour is another ruupa among the eight inseparable ruupas. Wherever materiality occurs, no matter whether of the body or outside the body, there has to be odour. The "Dhammasanganii" ( 625) mentions different odours, pleasant and unpleasant, but they all are just odour which can be experienced through the nose. The "Atthasaalinii" (II, Book II, Ch III, 320) defines odour as follows. [Note 3] "... all odours have the characteristic of striking the sense of smell, the property of being the object of olfactory cognition, the manifestation of being the field of the same...." It has as proximate cause the four Great Elements. Odour cannot arise alone, it needs the four Great Elements which arise together with it and it is also accompanied by the other ruupas included in the eight inseparable ruupas. When odour appears we tend to be carried away by like or dislike. We are attached to fragrant odours and we loathe nasty smells. However, odour is only a reality which is experienced through the nose and it does not last. If one does not develop understanding of realities one will be enslaved by all objects experienced through the senses. On account of these objects akusala cittas tend to arise. If someone thinks that there is a self who can own what is seen, touched or smelt, he may be inclined to commit unwholesome deeds such as stealing. In reality all these objects are insignificant, they arise and then fall away immediately. [Note 3] See also Visuddhimagga XIV, 56. -------------------- Chapter 2. The Eight Inseparable Ruupas to be continued. with metta, Han #98535 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Be here now nichiconn Hey Sarah, --- On Sun, 14/6/09, connie wrote: >Connie: Yeah, "intention" usually seems to be another of those confusing "daily life situation" with "conditioning" or "dhammic relations" (if you will, haha) sorta thinkings; but cetanaa's a universal cetasika. You ever wonder how people can say they did anything "inadvertently" when of course, there's pa~ncadvaaraavajjan a throughout the waking day? Then "intentional" receiving, investigating and determining & finally, javana - kusala, akusala, phala or kiriya, as the case may be, .... S: Excuse me butting in, but what's *phala* javana? ... C: O no! Excuse me for opening another can of worms. Htoo used to mention ariya phala and magga javanas. #47972 < Apart from kiriya-javana cittas, all other javana cittas creates kamma with the exception of phala citta or fruition consciousness which are resultant cittas of lokuttara kusala cittas or magga cittas or path-consciousness. > First there's the sotapatti maggatthaana puggala and (#48343) < The only javana citta that can arise in these individuals is sotapatti magga citta. So other 54 javana cittas cannot arise in them. If arise these individuals are no more new sotapams > but sotapatti phalatthaana puggalas. Actually, I "inadvertently" included phala when I'd just been puzzling over why, about 15 minutes into his lecture (dhammalecturevideo.org/pathana_u_punno/Abhid4.wmv), the venerable P had erased vipaka & replaced it with kiriya but then let phala stand after he'd said "for javana you can remember kusala, akusala, phala and ..." If I'd had to guess I'd've said phala and magga were more jhaana- than javana-like... but now that I think about it, they're the brick unlayers, aren't they? >but statistically speaking? "'Intention' is about the function of the kilesas" - Yowsa. Since receiving and investigating are vipakas, it's the the determining that sets the tone? Yes, (a)yoniso manasikaara, I think. - ... S: Hmmm, I wouldn't quite put it like that. Determing is just one citta....OK, a 'rudder' as Htoo used to remind us. However, I think it's more accurate to say it's the javanas, the kusala, akusala (or kiriya) accumulations that really set the tone, conditioned by all the previous habits and tendencies. (A)yoniso manasikaara referring to the whole set of determining + javanas. .... C: Ok, since both doors (adverting/avajjana) & determining/votthapana) are ahetuka kiriya cittas; but it still 'looks' to me like the conductor/votthapana raises the baton and as each javana/section comes in, the volume increases & when they suddenly stop playing, the echo or dying out sound is "retained"/tadaarammana. Uh huh, juvenile understanding takes a bow. >What's sankappa again? PTS... (snip): VbhA 117. Sankappa is defd at DhsA 124 as (cetaso) abhiniropana, i. e. application of the mind. See on term also Cpd. 238. .... S: Vitakka cetasika. As Nina, said, 'intention' is a misleading translation, (though 'thinking' or 'thought' is problematic too....) ... C: and what's it's relation to (a)yoniso manasikaara is what I was off wondering... vitakka ... sankappa ... Kappeti [Der. from kappa, karoti to shape, to make, cp. karoti] to cause to fit, to create, build, construct, arrange, prepare, order. I. lit. 1. in special sense: to prepare, get done, i. e. harness: - PTSDict. ... but let's not have a curtain call. >O! and thanks for the sutta paa.li - I can stop 'intending' to look that up now. ... S: What's that popular saying? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Now, that shows a clear lack of understanding of kusala and kamma, doesn't it? C: 'Fraid so. and pretty sure this'd go straight from Drafts to Recycle if I stop to re-read! peace, connie Abhidhamma is very interesting to thinking people. So let us see whether Abhidhamma is really interesting or not. -U Thittila #98536 From: "jessicamui" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear Sarah, Nina and all, Thank you for replying. Please see in-line comments: >>J: then what conditions the concept to arise ? > ... > S: It doesn't exist in an absolute sense so it doesn't arise. Like when we're asleep, dreaming occurs and there are all sorts of images. However, they aren't real - it's only the mind-door cittas (and cetasikas) which are arising and falling away with bhavanga cittas arising and falling away in between. It depends on sa~n~naa (perception/memory) in particular as to what ideas or imagery will be marked from moment to moment. When we're awake, it's much the same, only there are sense door processes in between the sets of mind door processes as well. J: Sarah, when you said it doesn't arise, does it mean that it is always there or it is created by sanna ? If it is always there, the citta knows it as the attention (manasikara) directs the citta to it and the sanna percieve it as sanna understands. If this is the case, its even-presence nature is depending on the rupa. So it is not "unconditional". If it is "created" by sanna and/or citta, then it is "conditioned" by the sanna and citta. > .... > S: As Nina clarified, concepts are not a khandha, not sankhara khandha, not namas. This is a common misconception. As Alberto clarified, sankhara khandha includes the 50 cetasikas only, other than sa~n~naa and vedana. Without citta, there can be no concept thought about or imagined. > > Now, there can be awareness and understanding of thinking or seeing or visible object. They can be directly known as objects of satipa.t.thaana. Concepts can never be known - only thought about. So they are not objects of insight or the path of vipassanaa. > J: understood. I just have problem in understand the "unconditionallity" nature of the concept. Thanks for the help! With Much Metta, Jessica. #98537 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:53 pm Subject: To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) nichiconn Hi KenH, Sarah, (Scott, Mike,) re: #98516, S: What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term `person' is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense." Let me try to rephrase it: "What is meant here is: even when there is no reference to namas and rupas or khandhas, words such as 'people' are to be understood as merely common expressions used for convenience." "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world." (Dialogues, i 263). D I 9, 440: Imaa kho citta, lokasama~n~naa lokaniruttiyo lokavohaaraa lokapa~n~nattiyo, yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasa''nti. Cy: 439-443. Atha bhagavaa tassa byaakara.nena saddhi.m attano byaakara.na.m sa.msanditu.m ''evameva kho cittaa''tiaadiini vatvaa puna opammato tamattha.m saadhento ''seyyathaapi citta gavaa khiira''ntiaadimaaha. Tatraaya.m sa"nkhepattho, yathaa gavaa khiira.m, khiiraadiihi ca dadhiaadiini bhavanti, tattha yasmi.m samaye khiira.m hoti, na tasmi.m samaye dadhiiti vaa navaniitaadiisu vaa a~n~nataranti sa"nkhya.m nirutti.m naama.m vohaara.m gacchati. Kasmaa? Ye dhamme upaadaaya dadhiitiaadi vohaaraa honti, tesa.m abhaavaa. Atha kho khiira.m tveva tasmi.m samaye sa"nkhya.m gacchati. Kasmaa? Ye dhamme upaadaaya khiiranti sa"nkhyaa nirutti naama.m vohaaro hoti, tesa.m bhaavaati. Esa nayo sabbattha. Imaa kho cittaati o.laariko attapa.tilaabho iti ca manomayo attapa.tilaabho iti ca aruupo attapa.tilaabho iti ca imaa kho citta lokasama~n~naa loke sama~n~naamattakaani samanujaananamattakaani etaani. Tathaa lokaniruttimattakaani vacanapathamattakaani vohaaramattakaani naamapa.n.nattimattakaani etaaniiti. Eva.m bhagavaa he.t.thaa tayo attapa.tilaabhe kathetvaa idaani sabbameta.m vohaaramattakanti vadati. Kasmaa? Yasmaa paramatthato satto naama natthi, su~n~no tuccho esa loko. Buddhaana.m pana dve kathaa sammutikathaa ca paramatthakathaa ca. Tattha ''satto poso devo brahmaa''tiaadikaa ''sammutikathaa'' naama. ''Anicca.m dukkhamanattaa khandhaa dhaatuyo aayatanaani satipa.t.thaanaa sammappadhaanaa''tiaadikaa paramatthakathaa naama. Tattha yo sammutidesanaaya ''satto''ti vaa ''poso''ti vaa ''devo''ti vaa ''brahmaa''ti vaa vutte vijaanitu.m pa.tivijjhitu.m niyyaatu.m arahattajayaggaaha.m gahetu.m sakkoti, tassa bhagavaa aaditova ''satto''ti vaa ''poso''ti vaa ''devo''ti vaa ''brahmaa''ti vaa katheti, yo paramatthadesanaaya ''anicca''nti vaa ''dukkha''nti vaatiaadiisu a~n~natara.m sutvaa vijaanitu.m pa.tivijjhitu.m niyyaatu.m arahattajayaggaaha.m gahetu.m sakkoti, tassa ''anicca''nti vaa ''dukkha''nti vaatiaadiisu a~n~natarameva katheti. Tathaa sammutikathaaya bujjhanakasattassaapi na pa.thama.m paramatthakatha.m katheti. Sammutikathaaya pana bodhetvaa pacchaa paramatthakatha.m katheti. Paramatthakathaaya bujjhanakasattassaapi na pa.thama.m sammutikatha.m katheti. Paramatthakathaaya pana bodhetvaa pacchaa sammutikatha.m katheti. Pakatiyaa pana pa.thamameva paramatthakatha.m kathentassa desanaa luukhaakaaraa hoti, tasmaa buddhaa pa.thama.m sammutikatha.m kathetvaa pacchaa paramatthakatha.m kathenti. Sammutikatha.m kathentaapi saccameva sabhaavameva amusaava kathenti. Paramatthakatha.m kathentaapi saccameva sabhaavameva amusaava kathenti. Duve saccaani akkhaasi, sambuddho vadata.m varo; Sammuti.m paramattha~nca, tatiya.m nuupalabbhati. Sa"nketavacana.m sacca.m, lokasammutikaara.na.m; Paramatthavacana.m sacca.m, dhammaana.m bhuutalakkha.nanti. Yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasanti yaahi lokasama~n~naahi lokaniruttiihi tathaagato ta.nhaamaanadi.t.thiparaamaasaana.m abhaavaa aparaamasanto voharatiiti desana.m viniva.t.tetvaa arahattanikuu.tena ni.t.thaapesi. Sesa.m sabbattha uttaanatthamevaati. hope that helps, connie #98538 From: "jessicamui" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear Nina, Thank you for the reply. Please see comments below: > ------- > N: It is not conditioned by kamma, good or bad deeds that produce results. You speak about what is experienced before, yes, it is sa~n~naa that remembers the Email you wrote, it remembers all sorts of concepts. It seems that the concept arises and falls away with the citta that thinks of it, but, as Sarah also explained, it is not the concept that arises and falls away, just the citta that thinks of it. J: so the concepts are created by the mind. Even though it is not called "conditioned" by the mind. > ------- > N:Compare the texts where he mentioned the two kinds of truth: conventional truth and ultimate truth, and here I mention the text used by Sarah recently: From the Potthapada Sutta: ?...these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,?(DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) J: before I come to know the Abdhidhamma explanation about the concepts, I understand that only the Nibanna object is the unconditional reality what is freed from the nature of 3 marks. Now, it is said that the concept is a unconditional non-reality. so it is "permanence, satisfactory and non-self (because Budhha said all Dhamma has the non-self nature) ? Saying these, I feel like it is of "wrong view". I hope you understand that is part of learning. There is not "views" behind these statements about conpcets, just questions while trying to understand. Thanks for your help ! Jessica. #98539 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Hi Connie, connie wrote: > S: What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental > aggregates the term `person' is used to denote a popular convention in > both its specific and its general sense." > > Let me try to rephrase it: > "What is meant here is: even when there is no reference to namas and > rupas or khandhas, words such as 'people' are to be understood as merely > common expressions used for convenience." NICE rephrasing. mike #98540 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:18 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). nilovg Dear friends, sutta 18. Walshe: DN 33.1.11(18) 'Four stations of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na-.t.thitiyo): Consciousness gains a footing either (a) in relation to materiality, with materiality as object and basis, as a place of enjoyment, or similarly in regard to (b) feelings, (c) perceptions of (d) mental formations, and there it grows, increases and flourishes. (Catasso vi~n~naa.na.t.thitiyo. Ruupuupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, vi~n~naa.na.m ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati ruupaaramma.na.m ruupappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m aapajjati; vedanuupaaya.m vaa aavuso.pe. sa~n~nuupaaya.m vaa, aavuso.pe. sa'nkhaaruupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, vi~n~naa.na.m ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati sa'nkhaaraaramma.na.m sa'nkhaarappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m aapajjati.) 4.18Cf. S. III, 53, where B.'s comment is fuller: consciousness, functioning by the other four khandhas, eventuates in action; action (karma) entails rebirth, hence increase or propagation of consciousness. ---------- N. The co. states that the foundation of consciousness is the object. The subco: the object is the condition for the occurring of citta. Therefore the text mentions visible object and so on. Vi~n~naa.na is dependent on ruupakkhandha, and without it, it could not occur. The co. uses the expression: sprinkled with delight (nandiyaa upasitta). This refers to the citta accompanied by lobha. The subco. explains that ruupa is as it were sprinkled over, as a curry sauce is sprinkled over boiled rice which is enjoyed. The Co repeats: consciousness grows, increases and flourishes (vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m aapajjati.) It adds: when it occurs for sixty or seventy years, as long as life lasts. The co. uses the expression kamma-vi~n~naa.na: the citta motivating kamma. The subco speaks about abhisankhaara vi~n~naa.na. This grows, increases and flourishes since it produces vipaaka. N: In the exposition of the Dependent Origination abhisankhaara is explained as kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma (aruupa jhaana) that produce vipaaka. The subco explaines that there is the growth of vipaakadhammas. Kamma produces fruit. It is said in a similar way that feelings, (c) perceptions of (d) mental formations are a foundation for citta and that there it grows, increases and flourishes. The sutta refers to the dependent origination and it shows the danger of kamma that produces vipaaka, in saying that consciousness grows, increases and flourishes as long as life lasts. We read in the Kindred Sayings (S. III, 53, Middle Fifty, 53, Attachment): The same is said with reference to the other khandhas. ------- N: We keep on clinging to all the sense objects, to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. After seeing visible object javanacittas with craving and clinging arise even in the sense- door process and also in the subsequent mind-door process. In this way clinging is accumulated again and again. So long as there is clinging there is no end to the cycle of birth and death. --------- Nina. #98541 From: "nichiconn" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:31 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) nichiconn Yeah, Sarah, (mike,) > > NICE rephrasing. > > mike > connie #98542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) nilovg Dear Jessica, Op 18-jun-2009, om 5:20 heeft jessicamui het volgende geschreven: > J: so the concepts are created by the mind. Even though it is not > called "conditioned" by the mind. > > ------- N: As it were 'created', this is figurative. Citta thinks of them. Citta can think of anything, what is true or not true. > > J: before I come to know the Abdhidhamma explanation about the > concepts, I understand that only the Nibanna object is the > unconditional reality what is freed from the nature of 3 marks. > Now, it is said that the concept is a unconditional non-reality. so > it is "permanence, satisfactory and non-self (because Budhha said > all Dhamma has the non-self nature) ? ------- N: I remember that Kh Sujin once said that non-self can be said even of concepts, since self does not exist. But since they are not real they do not have the three general charactreistics of realities. And we cannot say that concepts are always there, as if they exist. Now I think it useful that you study the different kinds of concepts, they can be the term that makes known something, and that which is made known, the meaning. Perhaps this solves many of your questions. See : So many different concepts: i) formal concept (santhana pannatti corresponding to the form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements. ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot. iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea de rived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West. v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha. vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha: All such different things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of ultimate things. They are called pannatti be cause they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of pannatti is so called because it is made known. As it makes known, it is described as name concept, name, name-made. -------- > J: Saying these, I feel like it is of "wrong view". I hope you > understand that is part of learning. There is not "views" behind > these statements about concepts, just questions while trying to > understand. ------ N: Very good questions. I quote more: --------- Kh Sujin: Even when we do not think of words we can know a concept. When we know the shape and form of some thing, when we have a concept of something as a whole or know the meaning of something; that is, we know what something is, then the object is a pannatti (concept), not a paramattha dhamma (reality). The characteristics of realities should be known precisely so that their arising and falling away can be realized. Someone may believe that he does not see that a chair falls away. When we cannot distinguish the different characteristics of paramattha dhammas as they appear one at a time, we take them all together as a whole. When we see a chair we know a concept. How could a concept fall away? As to the example of a picture of grapes and real grapes, is there any difference when one touches them and there is the experience of tangible object through the bodysense? Is the element of hardness not the same in both cases? The element of hardness originates from different factors and this is the condition that there are different degrees of hardness and softness. Hardness is a reality which appears through the bodysense, no matter whether there is a picture of grapes or real grapes. However, the grapes in the picture do not have the flavour of real grapes. Real grapes can be recognised because there are different types of rupas (physical phenomena) which arise together. Flavour is one type of rupa, odour is another type of rupa. Cold or heat, softness or hardness, motion or pressure, these are all different types of rupa which arise together and fall away very rapidly and are then succeeded by other rupas. Thus we think of a concept of a thing which does not seem to fall away. In reality the rupas that constitute grapes such as cold or heat, hard ness or softness, or flavour, fall away. Each rupa lasts only as long as seventeen moments of citta, no matter which colour, sound, or other type of rupa it may be. Panna (wisdom) should consider realities and know them one at a time, it should resolve the whole which is remembered by sadda (mental factor of remembrance or perception) into different elements. Thus it can be known that what one takes for a particular thing are in reality only different paramattha dhammas, each with their own characteristic, which arise and fall away together. When we join them together and have an image of a whole there are mind-door process cittas which have a concept of a whole, gana pannatti, as object. #98543 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:54 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, You wrote that you can be aware of more than one reality at a time. This is not possible. Each citta can have only one object at a time and thus also the citta with awareness can have only one object at a time. One may take for awareness what is only thinking. For example, one may have an idea of oneself seeing and hearing at the same time. Then there is thinking of a concept, of a whole of different phenomena which are joined together. If there can be awareness of different characteristics of realities which present themselves one at a time one will find out that awareness can be aware of only one object at a time. It is unpredictable which reality will present itself at which moment. It can be softness or hardness which impinges on the bodysense, it can be sound, visible object or another reality. So long as we do not distinguish between different realities which arise closely one after the other we will keep on thinking that realities last. For example, cittas with attachment may arise and then there may be thinking of the attachment. We may think with aversion about the attachment which arose a moment ago. If there can be awareness of different characteristics it can be known that attachment is one kind of reality and thinking with aversion another kind of reality. They arise because of their own conditions, they are beyond control, not self. ******* Nina. #98544 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 nilovg Dear Lukes, Op 16-jun-2009, om 22:29 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I would appreciate if you said more on this classification on vicitta. > Is it in Vibhanga or somewhere else? ------ N: It is in the Atthasaalini, Expositor (p. 84, 85). The co gives word associations with citta, citra, vicitta, and by means of these, different aspects are explained. ------- > L: ... and we wont be seeing the world of people and thing, but > just moha that conditions sankhara and sankhara that conditon > vinnaya. But it can be grasp only by panna dhatu, that has to arise > on conditions. > When there is sati of eightfold path, then patticcasamupada is > known. It is the moment when we understand the whole misery as it > really is. just moha that confition this jatimarana dukkha. No > people and things. When there is right understanding there is no > outer world of people and things, but the world of nama and ruupa. ------ N: Kh Sujin said that we cannot understand patticcasamuppada if the present reality is not known. Then we only understand the words and terms. But the realities can slowly, slowly be understood. -------- Nina. #98545 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:04 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Jon You asked: "Would you mind giving translations of the Pali passages quotd in your post since, as you correctly observe, I do not read Pali (and nor do the majority of the members of the list)." You (and other interested people) need to download Soma Thera's translation of Satipa.t.thaana commentary and read it. And, you (and other interested people) also need to look for third party translations of Sagaathaa vaggo from Samyuttanikkaya. Or Path of Purification or Path of Purity. I am afraid I won't have time for translating those Pali passages. I intentionally chose them because third party translations of them could easily be found either online or in libraries. I think translations for both Pali passages can be found on the accesstoinsight website. Best wishes Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98546 From: "m_nease" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:13 am Subject: [dsg] To Rob Ep. Part 1. Re: Dukkha; anatta (was, Not self vs. not-self) m_nease Oops-- Yeah, Sarah (thanks Connie), mike > > > > NICE rephrasing. > > #98547 From: "m. nease" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). m_nease Hi Nina, Well, this is really interesting. This is a pretty elementary question, I guess. But does this mean that consciousness never 'gains a footing' with concept as a basis? I do realize that concept isn't an element. But surely it is sometimes the object of mind- or mind-consciousness-element? Or no? Thanks in advance. mike Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, > > sutta 18. > > > Walshe: > DN 33.1.11(18) 'Four stations of consciousness > (vi~n~naa.na-.t.thitiyo): Consciousness gains a footing either (a) in > relation to materiality, with materiality as object and basis, as a > place of enjoyment, or similarly in regard to (b) feelings, (c) > perceptions of (d) mental formations, and there it grows, increases > and flourishes. > (Catasso vi~n~naa.na.t.thitiyo. Ruupuupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, > vi~n~naa.na.m ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati ruupaaramma.na.m > ruupappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m > aapajjati; vedanuupaaya.m vaa aavuso.pe. sa~n~nuupaaya.m vaa, > aavuso.pe. sa'nkhaaruupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, vi~n~naa.na.m > ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati sa'nkhaaraaramma.na.m > sa'nkhaarappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m > vepulla.m aapajjati.) > > 4.18Cf. S. III, 53, where B.'s comment is fuller: consciousness, > functioning by the other four khandhas, eventuates in action; action > (karma) entails rebirth, hence increase or propagation of consciousness. > > ---------- > > N. The co. states that the foundation of consciousness is the object. > > The subco: the object is the condition for the occurring of citta. > Therefore the text mentions visible object and so on. Vi~n~naa.na is > dependent on ruupakkhandha, and without it, it could not occur. > > The co. uses the expression: sprinkled with delight (nandiyaa > upasitta). This refers to the citta accompanied by lobha. > > The subco. explains that ruupa is as it were sprinkled over, as a > curry sauce is sprinkled over boiled rice which is enjoyed. > > The Co repeats: consciousness grows, increases and flourishes > (vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m aapajjati.) It adds: when it occurs > for sixty or seventy years, as long as life lasts. > > The co. uses the expression kamma-vi~n~naa.na: the citta motivating > kamma. The subco speaks about abhisankhaara vi~n~naa.na. This grows, > increases and flourishes since it produces vipaaka. > > N: In the exposition of the Dependent Origination abhisankhaara is > explained as kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma > (aruupa jhaana) that produce vipaaka. > > The subco explaines that there is the growth of vipaakadhammas. Kamma > produces fruit. > > It is said in a similar way that feelings, (c) perceptions of (d) > mental formations are a foundation for citta and that there it grows, > increases and flourishes. > > The sutta refers to the dependent origination and it shows the danger > of kamma that produces vipaaka, in saying that consciousness grows, > increases and flourishes as long as life lasts. > > We read in the Kindred Sayings (S. III, 53, Middle Fifty, 53, > Attachment): > > attachment to body [N: ruupakkhandha], brethren, consciousness, if it > get a standing, may persist. With body for its object, with body for > its platform, seeking a means of enjoyment, it may come by growth, > increase, abundance... > > If lust for body, brethren, is abandoned by a brother, by that > abandonment of lust its foothold is cut off. Thereby there is no > platform for consciousness....> > > The same is said with reference to the other khandhas. > > ------- > > N: We keep on clinging to all the sense objects, to visible object, > sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. After seeing visible > object javanacittas with craving and clinging arise even in the sense- > door process and also in the subsequent mind-door process. In this > way clinging is accumulated again and again. So long as there is > clinging there is no end to the cycle of birth and death. > --------- > > Nina. #98548 From: "jessicamui" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reposting: Questions regarding MN117 (The Great Forty) jessicamui Dear NIna, Thank you very much for the detailed reply. It will take me some time to read Sujin's article. Will write more after that. With Much Metta, Jessica. > > [text portions of this message have been removed] > #98549 From: "nichiconn" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). nichiconn Hi mike, > > Well, this is really interesting. This is a pretty elementary question, I guess. But does this mean that consciousness never 'gains a footing' > with concept as a basis? I do realize that concept isn't an element. But surely it is sometimes the object of mind- or > mind-consciousness-element? Or no? > hmm... just repeating what Nina wrote Jessica here: Panna (wisdom) should consider realities and know them one at a time, it should resolve the whole which is remembered by sa~n~na (mental factor of remembrance or perception) into different elements. Thus it can be known that what one takes for a particular thing are in reality only different paramattha dhammas, each with their own characteristic, which arise and fall away together. When we join them together and have an image of a whole there are mind-door process cittas which have a concept of a whole, gana pannatti, as object. -end quote. So, yes, I'd say... (c) perceptions. Also tho, for vi~n~naa.na, for the sense door part, it's just the eye, etc. consciousness, which wouldn't have anything to do with perception. Just thinking a bit about the different words that get translated as consciousness. Like the five door adverting & registration cittas being manodhatu & the rest of the series manovi~n~naa.na dhatu. Guess I'll butt back out here! peace, connie > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > > > sutta 18. > > > > > > Walshe: > > DN 33.1.11(18) 'Four stations of consciousness > > (vi~n~naa.na-.t.thitiyo): Consciousness gains a footing either (a) in > > relation to materiality, with materiality as object and basis, as a > > place of enjoyment, or similarly in regard to (b) feelings, (c) > > perceptions of (d) mental formations, and there it grows, increases > > and flourishes. > > (Catasso vi~n~naa.na.t.thitiyo. Ruupuupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, > > vi~n~naa.na.m ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati ruupaaramma.na.m > > ruupappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m vepulla.m > > aapajjati; vedanuupaaya.m vaa aavuso.pe. sa~n~nuupaaya.m vaa, > > aavuso.pe. sa'nkhaaruupaaya.m vaa, aavuso, vi~n~naa.na.m > > ti.t.thamaana.m ti.t.thati sa'nkhaaraaramma.na.m > > sa'nkhaarappati.t.tha.m nanduupasecana.m vuddhi.m viruu.lhi.m > > vepulla.m aapajjati.) > > #98550 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:14 pm Subject: Focused Thought! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What 4 Objects of Thinking are always Advantageous? Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus do not accept to think any evil disadvantageous thought such as: 1: Thoughts mixed with Sense-Desire... 2: Thoughts mixed with Ill Will or Anger... 3: Thoughts mixed with Harm & Violence... Since all these thoughts are irrelevant and even detrimental to the basics of the Noble life & they furthermore do neither induce revulsion, nor disillusion, nor ceasing, nor Peace , nor any true knowledge of Enlightenment or Nibbāna! When you think, Bhikkhus, you should only think thoughts like these: 1: This is Suffering; 2: This is the Cause of Suffering; 3: This is the End of Suffering; 4: This is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... Why so? Such thoughts are of prime relevance and highly advantageous to the basics of the Noble life & they furthermore gradually induce both revulsion, detachment, stilling, Peace , and direct knowledge of Enlightenment & Nibbāna . Therefore, Bhikkhus, an effort should be made much of so to completely understand: This is Suffering; This is the Cause of Suffering; This is the End of Suffering; This is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... An effort should be made to understand, comprehend, penetrate, recognize & realize these 4 Noble Truths! Comments: Keep mind focused on these 4 facts whenever it strays into fun, wrath or ill... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:417-8] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 7: Thoughts... Have a nice truly focused day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Focused Thinking! #98551 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:39 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > Hello Jon > > You asked: > > "Would you mind giving translations of the Pali passages quotd in your > post since, as you correctly observe, I do not read Pali (and nor do the > majority of the members of the list)." > > You (and other interested people) need to download Soma Thera's > translation of Satipa.t.thaana commentary and read it. > > And, you (and other interested people) also need to look for third party > translations of Sagaathaa vaggo from Samyuttanikkaya. Or Path of > Purification or Path of Purity. > > I am afraid I won't have time for translating those Pali passages. I > intentionally chose them because third party translations of them could > easily be found either online or in libraries. > > I think translations for both Pali passages can be found on the > accesstoinsight website. > ------------- Hi Suan, After all your years at DSG are you seriously suggesting Jon is not familiar with this text? I know you are busy with your formal practices, but there really is no excuse for such condescending purported ignorance. A simple search of DSG posts would have revealed 33 in which Jon has specifically mentioned Soma Thera. The earliest (13692) goes back to June 2002. Here's an extract: ------ Jon: > I don't profess to have any particular knowledge of the Satipatthana Sutta, but I find the commentary to be a real goldmine and I learn more every time I go to it (Soma Thera's `The Way of Mindfulness' at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html#comment ). Here's how I understand the sutta as explained by the commentary. I have pasted below some extracts from the commentary that I find of particular relevance here. 1. The mindfulness that is the 4 foundations/arousings of mindfulness is, at its highest level, mindfulness of the aggregates. In the section on mindfulness of the body, this means mindfulness of the rupa aggregate. 2. While there is reflection on the parts of the body as an aspect of the development of samatha, the mindfulness of satipatthana is not mindfulness of `the body' as such but of rupas in general (including of course the rupas that are taken for the body). 3. Reference to `contemplating the body internally' is a reference to mindfulness of the rupas that are taken for one's own body, ie., that are taken for one's breath, hair, skin etc. 4. Reference to `contemplating the body externally' is a reference to mindfulness of the rupas that are taken either for the body of another or indeed for any `thing' external to one's own body. To my understanding, the point being made with the internal/external classification of the aggregates is that in an absolute (paramattha) sense they are the same dhammas in either case. The hardness one takes for one's own body is just the same as the hardness of another's or indeed of the floor. But only mindfulness can directly perceive this to be so. The commentary makes some useful distinctions at times between contemplation on the body as an aspect of samatha bhavana and contemplation on the body as an aspect of satipatthana. Well, I hope you find something that interests you here, Larry. Jon ----------- Ken H #98552 From: slnanda Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:39 pm Subject: RETREAT Talks in Taiping by Pa Auk Sayadaw & Bhikkhus ... silananda_t Dear Dhammafarers, Here are 37 talks given by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ven Agganna, Ven Mangala & Ven Pannananda at the recent concluded 3-month retreat held at Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary, Taiping, Malaysia: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Pa_Auk/Taiping_Retreat_2009/index.htm May you find peace & release. [?][?][?] mahakaruna, silananda #98553 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 7. ksheri3 Hi Nina, If some people consider that only one reality can be known at one time then I've gotta ask: what are the parameters and definitions of REALITY? <...> what the hell is a singular reality? Okay, I agree that the MIND-BODY-SPIRIT concept is nothing more than a rationalization and reduction of concepts used to manifest the illusion of a difference between the Mind and the Body and the Spirit but how the hell can this singularity exist all these thousands of years based upon the unstable and infirm nature of a divided singularity? <....> I'm gonna get you on the subject line that specifies "NATURE, ESSENSE" <....> toodles. colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > You wrote that you can be aware of more than one reality at a time. > This is not possible. Each citta can have only one object at a time > and thus also the citta with awareness can have only one object at a > time.<...> #98554 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear Nina, Sarah and friends, > > I would appreciate if you said more on this classification on vicitta. > > Is it in Vibhanga or somewhere else? > > ------ > N: It is in the Atthasaalini, Expositor (p. 84, 85). The co gives > word associations with citta, citra, vicitta, and by means of these, > different aspects are explained. > ------- L: It would be great if anyone could share this passage. I've got also some thougts after reading CMA. I see now from where Ajahn Sujin took her teachings ;> First I was amazed that she is so sure and give some new ideas of Dhamma, but now I can see that see borow a lot things from CMA ;> I think that's good, because we can be more sure about both Abhidhamma teachings and Khun Sujin reminders. > N: Kh Sujin said that we cannot understand patticcasamuppada if the > present reality is not known. > Then we only understand the words and terms. But the realities can > slowly, slowly be understood. L: It's such a great remider to hear about present moment. I am constantly live in my own dream word. Constantly thinkin about Dhamma and taking it for Dhamma. But do not understand that is only thinking. Ignorance is so deeply rooted. I remember old Sarah's reminders to me: understand this present moment. They were really helpful, but now Sara doesnt give me such reminders and I need them very much. That oments when we see what is important(yoniso mansikara), are so rare. Maybe some kind of seclusion could make it arise more often? My best wishes Lukas #98555 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:06 am Subject: Re: RETREAT Talks in Taiping by Pa Auk Sayadaw & Bhikkhus ... christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, s�l�nanda wrote: > > Dear Dhammafarers, > > Here are 37 talks given by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ven Agganna, Ven Mangala & > Ven Pannananda at the recent concluded > 3-month retreat held at Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary, Taiping, Malaysia: > > http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Pa_Auk/Taiping_Retreat_2009/index.htm > Hello silananda, Is there a list of the titles - this would be helpful for those of us who may wish to listen to particular talks, but not have to download the entire number. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #98556 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:15 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) abhidhammika Hello Ken, Mike N, Jon, Howard, Robert E, Robert K, Sarah How are you? Ken wrote: " After all your years at DSG are you seriously suggesting Jon is not familiar with this text? I know you are busy with your formal practices, but there really is no excuse for such condescending purported ignorance. A simple search of DSG posts would have revealed 33 in which Jon has specifically mentioned Soma Thera. The earliest (13692) goes back to June 2002. Here's an extract:" Suan replied: Ken, thank you for the revelation. I have no idea why Jon asked me to translate Section 16 Pali passage of Satipa.t.thaana commentary. If he was familiar with Soma Thera's translation of that text as you revealed, he should or would not have asked me to provide the translation of Sections 105 and 106. But, he did ask. He must have memory laspe. Well, your post was more useful for Jon than for me. You should have addressed your post to Jon instead of addressing it to me and accusing me of condescending purported ignorance. By the way, even though all my years at DSG, you shoul not have assumed that I would visit it regularly, let alone reading many posts. That is why, only belatedly, I became aware of K Sujin and KS Folks including you have been agaisnt formal practices of Siila, Samatha and Vipassanaa, thereby deviating from the Buddha's Theravada teachings. So, my ignorance, condescending or otherwise, about what has been going on all these years at DSG was duly justified. By the way, you would notice that I do not include your name in my posts. That is a clear indication that I have delibrate ignorance about your posts (i.e, I do not read them). This also applies to Scott D's posts. So, Ken, please do not assume that I know who reads what, or who objects to what. Delibrate ignorance is bliss! See Section 213, Siilakkhandhavaggapali, Diighanikaaya. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #98557 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:30 am Subject: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, You asked me whether awareness of sound means recognizing sound as sound. Who is recognizing sound as sound? Is there an idea of self who recognizes sound as sound? When two people say that they recognize sound as sound one person may have right understanding and the other person may not. We may understand in theory that sati is not self but we may still cling to an idea of my sati. When one has desire for sati and one wants to create conditions for its arising one has not understood that sati is not self, that it arises because of its own conditions. One may imagine what sati should be like but instead of speculation about it one should keep in mind that the realities which appear and thus also sati and pa are only conditioned phenomena which are beyond control. Beyond control means that they are not self. Our goal should not be to have many moments of sati but to develop right understanding of the nma and rpa which appear now. Sound appears time and again. Right understanding of sound can be developed when it appears and we do not need to think about sati. One may say that one recognizes sound as sound but one may not realize it as a kind of rpa which appears through the earsense. One may name it rpa, but naming a reality is not the same as directly knowing its characteristic when it appears. In the beginning there cannot be a precise knowledge of nma and rpa but we should remember that it can be developed only when there is study with awareness of the nma or rpa presenting itself now. You said that you can experience something of impermanence, fluctuations of phenomena. Then there is only thinking about an idea one has of impermanence. The arising and falling away of one nma or rpa at a time can, as I said, only be realized later on. It cannot be realized so long as one is still confused about the difference between nma and rpa. Nina. #98558 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). nilovg Dear Mike, Op 18-jun-2009, om 22:42 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > Well, this is really interesting. This is a pretty elementary > question, I guess. But does this mean that consciousness never > 'gains a footing' > with concept as a basis? I do realize that concept isn't an > element. But surely it is sometimes the object of mind- or > mind-consciousness-element? Or no? > > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: >> sutta 18. >> >> >> Walshe: >> DN 33.1.11(18) 'Four stations of consciousness >> (vi~n~naa.na-.t.thitiyo): Consciousness gains a footing either (a) in >> relation to materiality, with materiality as object and basis, as a >> place of enjoyment, or similarly in regard to (b) feelings, (c) >> perceptions of (d) mental formations, and there it grows, increases >> and flourishes. -------- N: In this context of the fours, the four khandhas other than vi~n~naa.nakkhandha are classified as the foundation or platform for consciousness. The subco mentions that vi~n~naa.nakkhandha is not mentioned as the fifth, since the classification is by fours. Moreover, the text points to the D.O. I think that if there were no realities, one could not think of concepts. One forms up concepts on account of thinking about visible object, sound, etc. Nina. #98559 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The World in the Buddhist Sense. Ch 2, no 7. nilovg Dear Colette, Op 18-jun-2009, om 19:01 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > If some people consider that only one reality can be known at one > time then I've gotta ask: > > what are the parameters and definitions of REALITY? <...> > > what the hell is a singular reality? ------- N: Seeing is a reality, it sees visible pobject and it can be directly known when it appears, now. At the moment of seeing there cannot be hearing at the same time. You will understand what a reality is when there is mindfulness of what appears at the present moment. When we speak about it, there are only words and names. Reality can be directly experienced without using names. Nina. #98560 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 19-jun-2009, om 9:35 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > N: It is in the Atthasaalini, Expositor (p. 84, 85). The co gives > > word associations with citta, citra, vicitta, and by means of these, > > different aspects are explained. > > ------- > > L: It would be great if anyone could share this passage. ------- N: Read on in Survey, she deals with all aspects. ------- > > L: I've got also some thougts after reading CMA. I see now from > where Ajahn Sujin took her teachings ;> > First I was amazed that she is so sure and give some new ideas of > Dhamma, but now I can see that see borow a lot things from CMA ;> > I think that's good, because we can be more sure about both > Abhidhamma teachings and Khun Sujin reminders. ------- N: Not her ideas, she only renders what is in the Tipi.taka and Commentaries. -------- > > L: It's such a great reminder to hear about present moment. I am > constantly live in my own dream word. Constantly thinkin about > Dhamma and taking it for Dhamma. But do not understand that is only > thinking. Ignorance is so deeply rooted. ------- N: But we all do, and it is not forbidden. We can learn that also dreaming is a dhamma. -------- > > L:I remember old Sarah's reminders to me: understand this present > moment. They were really helpful, but now Sara doesnt give me such > reminders and I need them very much. ----------- N: This make me think of my trip in Sri Lanka long ago. Everyday Kh Sujin reminded us: without study pa~n~naa cannot grow. By study she meant not book study, but carefull consideration of any reality appearing now. We appreciated these repetitions. -------- > > L:The moments when we see what is important(yoniso mansikara), are > so rare. Maybe some kind of seclusion could make it arise more often? -------- N: You remember Sarh's post about the meditation center? The whole wide world is a meditation center. No matter where you are, there is seeing, there is attachment. Realities appear already, and they can be known. There is no difference where you are. Anyway, your defilemenbts you carry with you everywhere. The latent tendencies. These can only be eradicated by understanding of all realities of your daily life. I heard this morning: in the scriptures we read about kusala dhamma. It is dhamma, not self. When satipatthaana is being developed there is no worry about result, no worry when enlightenment can occur. When we cling to self there is worry. We take worry for self. Nina. #98561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:27 am Subject: Q. Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). nilovg Dear Connie, Mike, Jessica, Jessica, I understand that you want to think over things. When we study more details we see how complex the subject of concept is. Op 19-jun-2009, om 4:11 heeft nichiconn het volgende geschreven: > just repeating what Nina wrote Jessica here: > > Panna (wisdom) should consider realities and know them one at a > time, it should resolve the whole which is remembered by sa~n~na > (mental factor of remembrance or perception) into different > elements. Thus it can be known that what one takes for a particular > thing are in reality only different paramattha dhammas, each with > their own characteristic, which arise and fall away together. When > we join them together and have an image of a whole there are mind- > door process cittas which have a concept of a whole, gana pannatti, > as object. --------- N: I just quote more about concepts from my Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka: < Hardness can be directly experienced through the bodysense when it appears. Is there no hardness now, impinging on the bodysense? We do not have to think of hardness or name it in order to experience it. Hardness is real, it is a physical phenomenon, a rpa, which can be directly experienced. Can a chair be experienced through the bodysense? We think that we can touch a chair, but what is actually experienced? Hardness or softness can be directly experienced. A chair cannot be directly experienced, it is only an idea we form up in our minds. Thinking can think of many objects, it can think of realities and also of concepts which are not real. When we think that we see a person, it is not seeing, but it is thinking of a concept. Only visible object can be experienced through the eyesense. When we touch what we take for a person, what appears? Hardness, softness, heat or cold can be directly experienced through the bodysense, not a person. The Buddha taught that there is no person, no self. But we have accumulated so much ignorance and wrong view that it seems that we see and touch people. We may find it difficult to understand that there are in the absolute sense no people. There are no people, but this does not mean that there are no realities. What we take for people are different mental phenomena and physical phenomena which arise and fall away. There are realities such as seeing, thinking or generosity, but they are not people; they do not stay. When we think that a person is generous, it is in reality a moment of consciousness which is generous. It arises because of conditions and then it falls away. Why do we always insert a person in the giving when giving occurs, Acharn Sujin said. > ******* Nina. #98562 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:44 am Subject: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) sprlrt Hi Jon, here is Soma Thera translation of the pli passage Suan's posted, I just inserted a correction in brackets - Alberto http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html ... The Commentary to the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness with Marginal Notes The Section of the Synopsis ... Ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo = "This is the only way, O bhikkhus." Why did the Blessed One teach this Discourse? Because of the ability of the people of the Kurus to take in deep doctrine. ... Further, in that territory of the Kuru people, the four classes bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, upasaka, upasika generally by nature were earnest in the application of the Arousing of Mindfulness to their daily life. At the very lowest, even servants, usually, spoke with mindfulness. At wells or in spinning halls useless talk was not heard. If some woman asked of another woman, "Mother, which Arousing of Mindfulness do you practice?" (``amma tva.m katara.m satipa.t.thaanabhaavana.m manasikarosii'' [mother, which (of the four) development of satipatthana are you considering?]) and got the reply, "None at all," then that woman who replied so was reproached thus: "Your life is shameful; though you live you are as if dead," and was taught one of the kinds of Mindfulness-arousing. But on being questioned if she said that she was practicing such and such an Arousing of Mindfulness, then she was praised thus: "Well done, well done! Your life is blessed; you are really one who has attained to the human state; for you the Sammasambuddhas have come to be." > > > Please see Sections 105, and 106, Uddesakathaava.n.nanaa, > > Satipa.t.thaanasuttava.n.nanaa, Majjhimanikaayo. For example, > > > > > > > > 106. "Apica tasmim janapade catasso parisaa pakatiyaava > > satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogamanuyuttaa viharanti, antamaso > > daasakammakara > > > > parijanaapi satipa.t.thaanappa.tisamyuttameva katham kathenti. > > Udakatitthasuttakantana.t.thaanaadiisupi niratthakakathaa naama na > > pava > > > > ttati. Sace kaaci itthii "amma tvam kataram > > satipa.t.thaanabhaavanam manasikarosii"ti pucchitaa "na > > kicii"ti vadati. Tam garahanti > > > > "dhiratthu tava jiivitam, jiivamaanaapi tvam > > matasadisaa"ti. Atha nam "maa daani puna evamakaasii"ti > > ovaditvaa aataram satipa.t.thaanam > > > > ugga.nhaapenti. Yaa pana "aham asukam satipa.t.thaanam > > manasikaromii"ti vadati. Tassaa "saadhu saadh"ti > > saadhukaaram datvaa "tava > > > > jiivitam sujiivitam, tvam naama manussattam pattaa, tavatthaaya > > sammaasambuddho uppanno"ti-aadiihi pasamsanti. Na kevalacettha > > > > manussajaatiyaayeva satipa.t.thaanamanasikaarayuttaa, te nissaaya > > viharantaa tiracchaanagataapi." > > > > #98563 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:13 am Subject: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 nichiconn Dear Lukas, > > I would appreciate if you said more on this classification on vicitta. > > Is it in Vibhanga or somewhere else? > > ------ > N: It is in the Atthasaalini, Expositor (p. 84, 85). The co gives > word associations with citta, citra, vicitta, and by means of these, > different aspects are explained. > ------- Expositor p.84,85 / Atthasaalini 63,64: By 'consciousness' (citta) is meant that which of its object, is aware variously. , inasmuch as this word 'consciousness' is common to all states or classes of consciousness, that which is known as worldly, moral, immoral, or the great inoperative, is termed 'consciousness,' because it arranges itself in a series (cinoti, or, its own series or continuity) by way of apperception in a process of thought. And the resultant is also termed 'consciousness' because it is accumulated (cito) by kamma and the corruptions. Moreover, all (four classes) are termed 'consciousness' because they are variegated (citra) according to circumstance. The meaning of consciousness may also be understood from its capacity of producing a variety or diversity of effects. Herein consciousness with lust is one thing, that with hate is another, that with delusion is another, that experienced in the universe of sense is another, and those experienced in the universe of attenuated matter, etc., are others. Different is consciousness with a visible object, with an auditory object, etc.; and in that with visible objects, varied is consciousness of a blue-green object, of a yellow object, etc. And the same is the case with the consciousness of auditory objects. And of all of this consciousness one class is low, another is medium, and third is exalted. Among the low class again consciousness is different when dominated by desire-to-do, or when dominated by energy, or by investigation. Therefore the variegated nature of consciousness should be understood by way of these characteristics of association, locality, object, the three degrees of comparison and dominance. Although any single one of these is verily not variegated in itself and by itself in the sense explained thus, it is nevertheless proper to say of any one of them, that it is so called from its variegated character, because it is included in consciousness as making up a variegated whole. Thus far the first explanation of consciousness is from its variegated nature. How is consciousness (i.e., mind) capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action? There is no art in the world more variegated than the art of painting. In painting, the painter's masterpiece {cara.na} is more artistic than the rest of his pictures. L: I've got also some thougts after reading CMA. I see now from where Ajahn Sujin took her teachings ;> First I was amazed that she is so sure and give some new ideas of Dhamma, but now I can see that see borow a lot things from CMA ;> I think that's good, because we can be more sure about both Abhidhamma teachings and Khun Sujin reminders. c: :) That always impressed me, too, Lukas. I'd read something really neat in SPD or something - like about the artist's masterpiece or the bird and it's shadow - and I'd think it was just her own neat explanation, but then one day I'd run across the same thing in the teachings & be all that more pleased to consider that she really does know what she's talking about & yes, definitely a traditional teacher. peace, connie #98564 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:56 am Subject: Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear Connie Thank you for sharing Atthasalini. I am really happy that I have the oportunity to hear this accurate Dhamma. We dont know what will be next. > L: I've got also some thougts after reading CMA. I see now from where Ajahn Sujin took her teachings ;> > First I was amazed that she is so sure and give some new ideas of Dhamma, but now I can see that see borow a lot things from CMA ;> > I think that's good, because we can be more sure about both Abhidhamma teachings and Khun Sujin reminders. > > c: :) That always impressed me, too, Lukas. I'd read something really neat in SPD or something - like about the artist's masterpiece or the bird and it's shadow - and I'd think it was just her own neat explanation, but then one day I'd run across the same thing in the teachings & be all that more pleased to consider that she really does know what she's talking about & yes, definitely a traditional teacher. L: That is exactly what I was thinking about. You express it very well. My best wishes Lukas #98565 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no2 szmicio Dear Nina > > L: I've got also some thougts after reading CMA. I see now from > > where Ajahn Sujin took her teachings ;> > > First I was amazed that she is so sure and give some new ideas of > > Dhamma, but now I can see that see borow a lot things from CMA ;> > > I think that's good, because we can be more sure about both > > Abhidhamma teachings and Khun Sujin reminders. > ------- > N: Not her ideas, she only renders what is in the Tipi.taka and > Commentaries. > -------- L: Of course. Now I can see it. If she adds anything it is for sure her deep understanding and sadha. She shows us the way with such a great courage. It helps me so much. Understand she says all the time. I am greatful to her teachings. She showed me the way that I could found my Dhamma myself. > > L: It's such a great reminder to hear about present moment. I am > > constantly live in my own dream word. Constantly thinkin about > > Dhamma and taking it for Dhamma. But do not understand that is only > > thinking. Ignorance is so deeply rooted. > ------- > N: But we all do, and it is not forbidden. We can learn that also > dreaming is a dhamma. > -------- L: But when we live in a word of concepts, there is no understanding. > > L:The moments when we see what is important(yoniso mansikara), are > > so rare. Maybe some kind of seclusion could make it arise more often? > -------- > N: You remember Sarh's post about the meditation center? The whole > wide world is a meditation center. No matter where you are, there is > seeing, there is attachment. Realities appear already, and they can > be known. There is no difference where you are. Anyway, your > defilemenbts you carry with you everywhere. The latent tendencies. > These can only be eradicated by understanding of all realities of > your daily life. > I heard this morning: in the scriptures we read about kusala dhamma. > It is dhamma, not self. When satipatthaana is being developed there > is no worry about result, no worry when enlightenment can occur. When > we cling to self there is worry. We take worry for self. L: Thank you Nina. #98566 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:25 am Subject: Re: Kamma condition (for anytime/nnkkhanika result /vipaka) szmicio Dear Alberto, Please continue. Your posts are very helpful to me. In this life there is just usual life and forgotfulness all the time. I like to think about Buddha times, the people come because they hear the Buddha is in town. They were very unhappy guys so they come to see Buddha. They thought:"Let the great Buddha tell me what to do, how should I practice to achive happiness". And they always get the Dhamma teaching. And hearing this Dhamma conditioned the right understanding and they became free of bonds and start to see things as they really are. I like to think about this subtle way of hearing the Dhamma as the condition to right understanding. In a daily life we tend to think that there is a Self that is doing this or that, but your reminders always remember me how subtle the way is. Please continue your series. My best wishes Lukas > Cetana cetasika is included in sankhara khandha along with other 49 (while saa and vedana cetasika are separate khandhas). > It arises indivisibly associated, thoroughly blended, sampayutta, with all 89 possible cittas, kusala or akusala (the succession of seven javana cittas, where sankhara khandha accumulates, taking place in each process/vithi, the knowing of an object through one of the six doors), vipaka, and kiriya. > > In a kusala or akusala javana citta, cetana (also) operates as nnkkhanika kamma paccaya, it'll condition the unexpected arising of a vipaka citta such as one in a sense door processes, cakkhu...kaya-viana, seeing...body consciousness, anytime, unpredictably (but by a Buddha). > > Conventionally one "(free) wills" first, and only afterwards "acts" accordingly, while actually they are one and the same dhamma, arising at the same time and at the same place, vatthu; knowing the same object, arammana, and falling away immediately, along with the citta and all its associated nama-dhammas. > > When it is nnkkhanika kamma paccaya, cetana/intention is action/kamma (through one of the three doors of actions: mind-speech-body, mano-vaci-kaya kammadvara), and viceversa. > > Alberto > > > Patthna > ... > 2. Concise exposition of conditions > ... > Kamma condition > Kusala and akusala kamma [cetana] is condition, as kamma condition, for vipaka khandhas and for stored up [kamma-produced, inc. the six basis, vatthus, where cittas arise] rupas. > [this is nnkkhanika, anytime, kamma paccaya] > Cetana is condition, as kamma condition, for its associated dhammas and for citta-produced rupas. > [this is sahajata, conascent, kamma paccaya] > > pli > kusalaakusala.m kamma.m vipaakaana.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena > paccayo. > cetanaa sampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena paccayo''ti > #98567 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, Sorry for the delay-- sarah abbott wrote: > > >S:...the text (Puggala-Pa~ n~natti) introduces 'puggala-pa~ n~natti' > > with: > > > > "In what ways is there a designation of human types? > > 1- Grouping of Human Types by One. > > > > "(1) One who is emancipated in season (samayavimutto) > > (2) One who is emancipated out of season (asamayavimutto) > > (3) One of perturbable nature.(kuppadhammo )> .... > > (4) One of imperturbably nature.(akuppadhamm o) > > (5) One liable to fall away (gotrabhuu). ....." > > > > So, in reality, are these people or cittas? > .... > M:> I think this is a false dilemma (no offense)--the question should > be, 'are these pa~n~nattis or are they dhammas?'. As I see it, in the > 'suttanta method', they're pa~n~nattis. In the 'abhidhamma method', > they're dhammas. The pa~n~nattis are, in my opinion, meant to inspire > confidence and attention to concepts that will--conditions > allowing--lead to insight into dhammas. > .... > S: I would say that in either case (i.e. 'suttanta' method or > 'abhidhamma method'), concepts (pa~n~natti) are used to point to > dhammas. Yes, well, this is where we seem to disagree. You "would say that in either case (i.e. 'suttanta' method or 'abhidhamma method'), concepts (pa~n~natti) are used to point to dhammas." I would say that, in the case of "...there are priests & contemplatives...", although the 'beings' referred to are ultimately designations of past naamas and ruupas, that the language isn't being used primarily to 'point' at these, but rather to inspire etc. Two different (though obviously closely related) things, as I see it. > So,in the above example, they are pa~n~natti pointing to > dhammas and, as you indicate, being used "to inspire confidence and > attention to concepts that will--conditions allowing--lead to insight > into dhammas." This would be an example of concepts as natural decisive > support for right understanding, as I was discussing with Ann, I believe. Yes, here we agree. > The point was, however, that so often such teachings as the above are > wrongly understood as referring to people as existing. I quoted it > because of comments you'd made, such as these ones to Azita and me: > ***** > [> >>M: Could you please explain just how "...there are priests & > > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > > themselves..." refers to dhammas? This still seems very conceptual to me. > > >> azita: isnt this passage using concepts to describe realities? > > M:>>Well, that's clearly what Sarah thinks-- > > Az:>> For example, priests and contemplates - citta, cetasika and rupa. > > 'faring rightly and practicing rightly' - ?right view and right > > understanding, among other kusala cetasikas. > > 'proclaim this world and the next.....for themselves' - highly developed > > panna which knows what this world etc really is - impermanent, not-self > > and therefore dukkha. > > M:> OK. Of course I do understand that it refers to beings who have > achieved not only the beautiful factors you mention, but I think > nibbaana too. Still, it refers to 'beings' who have achieved--and aren't > beings pa.n.natti?.] > ***** > S: We all agree that 'beings' are pa~n~natti. But isn't the important > point to understand is that there are actually only cittas, cetasikas > and rupas in reality, however we dress them up? Certainly that is AN important point--I'd say the most important point, in fact--but it isn't the only point made in the texts. I think it's also important to recognize when that is the point being made and when it isn't. > >>S: I'd suggest (with the help of the notes)these refer to: > > (1) The path cittas of the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, i.e to > > sotapatti-magga citta and so on. > > (2) The path cittas of the sukkhavipassaka- khii.naasavas (Arahants > who do > > not practise Jhaana - comy) > > (3) The cittas of the putthujana,sotapann a and sakadagami having > attained > > the 8 samaapattis (absorptions/ jhanas) > > (4) The cittas of the anagami or arahant having attained the 8 > samaapatis. > > (5) The citta which is succeeded by the ariyan magga citta, referring > > here, 'According to the Commentary.. ..to a person who has reached the > > family, circle, or designation of Ariyas....'. Again, this is > referring in > > an absolute sense to a series of cittas only. > > M:> Of course. > > S: >> In other words, all sammuti sacca using various pa~n~natti, but > always to designate and point again to absolute realities. > > M:> Not always to designate or to point, as I see it--often to inspire, > exhort, explain, encourage, discourage and so on. > .... > S: I'm sure this is true, but with an underlying understanding of the > absolute realities, I think. Right. This is where we disagree. I don't believe that every word the Buddha spoke either assumed "an underlying understanding of the absolute realities" on the part of his audience or was meant expressly as an instruction in their nature (though of course many correctly made the former assumption and many others were such instructions). I think he spoke in a great many other ways on a great many other topics, often with no hidden meaning 'to be drawn out' (as in the allowing of the toothstick). Of course the entire body of the teachings circles round and directs toward insight, no question in my mind. Everything in the texts not directly encouraging insight contributes to laying the groundwork for its cultivation (such as the structure of the sa"ngha, for example), as I see it. But that's a different thing from saying that every single word he ever spoke referred to insight either directly or indirectly. > For example, the above quote might be used > to inspire followers to develop insight and become enlightened, but > without an understanding of namas and rupas, of conditioned dhammas, > such an exhortation is quite useless. Of course it is insight itself that understands naamas and ruupas; for most people, even in the Buddha's day, it's necessary first to learn concepts consistent the the Four Noble Truths (e.g. "...there are priests & contemplatives...") before insight can arise, as I see it (and I'd include the theoretical understanding of naamas and ruupas as being among those concepts). By the way, I doubt (as I'm sure you do) that any of the Buddha's exhortations were ever quite useless. Exhortations 'to inspire followers' etc. would surely, in most cases, precede any insight. Thanks for your patience. mike #98568 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristic of thinking m_nease Hi Sarah, Still catching up-- sarah abbott wrote: > M:> I also appreciated and agree with Alberto's comments. > > That isn't to say, though, that I believe that every word > > the Buddha ever spoke was meant > > to direct his audience's attention to real (so necessarily > > present) phenomena. I don't believe that that was the > > case. Sorry I didn't make > > this point more clearly in the first place. > > > > Thanks for your patience. > .... > S: Thx for your patience too!! I agree with you that "not every word > the Buddha ever spoke was meant to direct his audience's attention to > real (so necessarily present) phenomena", I'm glad to read this-- > however, I think the > implication from the teachings is that the "real (so necessarily > present) phenomena" is always to be known, no matter the topic or > situation, just like for us now. I would certainly agree that that is the profoundest 'implication [and explication] from the teachings'--just not the only one. > Whether we're chatting about cats, surf > or visible objects, sati and pa~n~naa have to arise at this very moment. I'd say 'can only', rather than 'have to'. Very rare, to say the least--wouldn't you say? Other than theoretically? > This is where the 'natural' comes in for me. Of course sati or pa~n~naa are vanishingly rare in nature, compared to various unwholesome factors, as I'm sure you'd agree. If you're referring to natural decisive support condition, isn't it--and the activity that it supports--far more likely to be the unwholesome rather than wholesome? > Thanks a lot for helping me to reflect further on this. Not at all. > As I always say > to Phil (and anyone else), feel free to drop our threads anytime. Thanks, ditto to you. mike #98569 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Nina, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Better live from moment to moment. > ---------- > > M: An interesting concept. But I think you'd agree that that isn't > > something 'we' can choose to do. > ---------- > N: Before we know we are trapped again. I said the other day that > often we fail, and then I am thinking of 'me' who fails, whereas it > is the akusala citta. So we cannot be reminded enough to consider > citta, cetasika and ruupa. No, and I think we're all considerably indebted to you, Khun Sujin, Sarah and Jon for your constant reminders. Thanks. mike #98570 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:20 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > <. . .> > By the way, even though all my years at DSG, you shoul not have assumed > that I would visit it regularly, let alone reading many posts. That is > why, only belatedly, I became aware of K Sujin and KS Folks including > you have been agaisnt formal practices of Siila, Samatha and Vipassanaa, > thereby deviating from the Buddha's Theravada teachings. > > So, my ignorance, condescending or otherwise, about what has been going > on all these years at DSG was duly justified. > Hi Suan, Thanks for replying and for not taking too much offence. Even though you haven't been reading everyone's posts, the fact remains that you have taken part in *many* of DSG discussions on "the Satipatthana Sutta and its commentaries." You have helped, for example, to translate the Pali verb "to know" as it is used in the sutta - explaining that it means 'to know the way things are in ultimate reality.' I often wondered at such times whether you realised the consequences of what you were saying. You were putting yourself firmly on non-formal-meditation side of the debate. Formal-meditators always insist that satipatthana means to know things (walking, for example) in the normal, conventional, sense. Eventually you made your allegiance known. I recall an astonishing post in which you congratulated Alex on "doing the good work." (!) Alex has some very strange ideas about Buddhism. Sometimes he thinks the Buddha believed in a self, sometimes he is not sure whether he did or not. He has a very low opinion of the Abidhamma and the ancient commentaries. Sometimes he argues that Mahayana is superior to Theravada. Alex believes passionately in formal meditation, but his style of meditation is probably not at all like yours (or other DSG meditators'). There is only one thing common to all formal meditators. And that is, they believe the Dhamma to be a set of instructions. Just like all other teachings and religions! And the perpetuation of that belief is what you regard as "the good work." Comments, please! Ken H #98571 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott, Scott wrote: > M: "I'd say that usually, anything we'd refer to as 'an activity' would > designate a vast number of consciousnesses/mental factors, wouldn't > it?...in the course of any act of murder or theft or devotion or > generosity, there must occur countless consciousness/mental factors, > including kusala, akusala and avyaakata ones." > > Scott: Agreed. This has implications for the way in which things are > considered. I think that the common, ordinary way of thinking of this > wrongly considers the whole 'act' - the illusory puppet show - as kusala > in its entirety. This misunderstands the meaning of kusala, in > particular, that kusala designates a given moment. While at some point > in the entire sequence there can be kusala moments, these will be > interspersed, as you say with many other dhammaa. Thoughts of 'I give' > are based on conventional designations and thoughts about concepts. Agreed-- > M: "The 'it' you refer to is the conventional 'act', right? The list is > of antonyms of 'deliberate'. So are you suggesting that 'when it (a > conventional act) is kusala, it might naturally not be deliberate'? A > conventional 'act' comprises too many consciousnesses/mental factors to > count, so could hardly be said to be 'kusala' or akusala, I think. The > attribution of 'deliberate' to the 'act' would also be a non-starter, as > I see it. Same atathaparikappana*." > > Scott: I'm not sure what I was referring to, but I think 'it' was that > nasty, so-called 'deliberate act' and I agree with the above. > Conventionally, say, I give a donation to the local homeless shelter. > Since a myriad of dhammaa would have arisen and fallen away over the > course of such an 'act' it could hardly be said that the 'act' was > kusala. The 'act' as a conventionally considered whole is not synonymous > with the giving is it? I'd say that 'giving' can refer either to the whole conventional seeming event of an act of charity (obviously a pa~n~natti) or to the mental factor of daana; or, best of all, daana ~naa.na sampayutta. I think it's necessary to know and recognize the distinctions (theoretically, I mean) to properly understand the texts or everyday life. > M: "Yes, let's take the circumambulation of stupas or the making > offerings to bhikkhus, for example. Conventionally, these could be > called 'practices'. But if actual pa.tipatti occurs at all during these > activities, it is momentary and attended by pa~n~na (not avijjaa). So > once again, conventional 'practice' vs. ultimate 'practice', as I see > it--important not to confuse the two." > > Scott: This would suggest that it is not necessary to circumambulate a > stupa or offer to bhikkhus. That is, one needn't think that one must go > out of one's way to go to a stupa and walk around it or find a monk and > make an offering, nor that doing so has any special significance in and > of itself. Where is the kusala in these conventionally designated 'acts'? Well, we have friends who visit the 'holy sites', make offerings to bhikkhus and circumambulate stupas, and I certainly hope that these activities 'contain' some kusala kamma. I think I recall these activities being encouraged in the texts, but I don't have a citation off-hand. The great danger, as I see it, lies in expecting these conventional activities to yield insight. This, I think, is a working description of silabbataparamassa (spelling correction gratefully welcomed). > A rationalisation often encountered seems to be that such acts somehow > amount to someone - not ultimately real - creating conditions for kusala > to arise. And this doesn't happen since conditions cannot be manipulated > by a conceptual entity. Why the instructions to do so, do you think? > You're considering this, I think, in other threads where the idea of > 'conceptual wisdom' or something is being discussed I think that conditions--such as recollection (a dhamma) of the Buddha's (a pa~n~natti) speech serving as natural decisive support condition for kusala kamma (as Sarah mentioned recently)--are more than enough to account for such instructions (unless you believe that "the Buddha only taught satipa.t.thaana"--I obviously don't). The Buddha (obviously) didn't have to think that 'beings' are ultimately real to know that recollection of his speech could become a factor of--and a condition for--the arising of future kusala kamma. And he surely knew that those conditions wouldn't always include the factor of amoha. Unlike some of us, I think there's a great deal of encouragement of kusala kamma in the texts that aren't direct encouragements to the development of insight. Amoha isn't a universal beautiful factor. Kusala kamma can occur without it and, by my reading of the texts, the Buddha often encouraged kusala kamma--with or without understanding. > M: "...'Thinking' means one thing conventionally and another ultimately. > Any occasion of the former refers to innumerable moments of mental > activity, necessarily admixed with a great many other activities; the > latter refers to a single moment, either (I THINK) of miccha sa"kappa > (most likely, to say the least) or samma sa"nkappa (vanishingly rare). > Obviously of huge importance (in my opinion) since the latter is a path > factor." > > Scott: In considering these things it becomes clear to me that I put so > much weight on what I think conventionally, as do we all, including what > I think about the Dhamma. Some of what I think conventionally must be > wrong, and some must be right, but what would such a statement mean? What if someone offered you something that, if you took it, would toss out the window all your self respect and every value you've every held dear, but would tell you the truth? It would be a brave, new world, wouldn't it? That, as I see it, is what the texts are for. To help us first to find 'our' way then to make 'our' way (conventionally speaking, of course). mike p.s. You still don't wish you'd taken the red pill, do you? #98572 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). m_nease Hi Connie, nichiconn wrote: > Panna (wisdom) should consider realities and know them one at a time, it > should resolve the whole which is remembered by sa~n~na (mental factor > of remembrance or perception) into different elements. Not only should--it must-- > Thus it can be > known that what one takes for a particular thing are in reality only > different paramattha dhammas, each with their own characteristic, which > arise and fall away together. When we join them together and have an > image of a whole there are mind-door process cittas which have a concept > of a whole, gana pannatti, as object. No question. > So, yes, I'd say... (c) perceptions. > Also tho, for vi~n~naa.na, for the sense door part, it's just the eye, > etc. consciousness, which wouldn't have anything to do with perception. > Just thinking a bit about the different words that get translated as > consciousness. Like the five door adverting & registration cittas being > manodhatu & the rest of the series manovi~n~naa.na dhatu. > Guess I'll butt back out here! Butt back in anytime. mike #98573 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Suan) - In a message dated 6/19/2009 6:48:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I often wondered at such times whether you realised the consequences of what you were saying. You were putting yourself firmly on non-formal-meditation side of the debate. Formal-meditators always insist that satipatthana means to know things (walking, for example) in the normal, conventional, sense. ============================== Ken, if you meditated you would just plain know this is untrue. When doing walking meditation, one, of course, is paying most attention to what is involved in walking, and, after a while, only that is observed, namely bodily sensations, especially earth (solidity) and air (motion), constant change, cetana as an impersonal impulsion, etc. It is fascinating - quite amazing really, and along with it, increasing mindfulness and deep calm. 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) #98574 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:22 pm Subject: Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. Ch 7, no 4 szmicio Dear friends, chapter 7 continues: ----------------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98575 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Be here now szmicio Dear friends "Be here now" states: ----------------------------- My best wishes Lukas #98576 From: "nichiconn" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). nichiconn hi again mike, > > > So, yes, I'd say... (c) perceptions. > > Also tho, for vi~n~naa.na, for the sense door part, it's just the eye, > > etc. consciousness, which wouldn't have anything to do with perception. < snip > > Guess I'll butt back out here! > > Butt back in anytime. > ok, just to say that of course, "perception" is a universal cetasika, so i'm not sure what i was thinking/trying to say there. I don't really understand what 'percept' means, either. I think I just meant that there's no -uhhh- recognizable idea involved... that conceptualization is later. peace, connie #98577 From: slnanda Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: RETREAT Talks in Taiping by Pa Auk Sayadaw & Bhikkhus ... silananda_t Chris, There is none at this moment. mahakaruna, silananda On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Christine Forsyth wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > s�l�nanda wrote: > > > > Dear Dhammafarers, > > > > Here are 37 talks given by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ven Agganna, Ven Mangala & > > Ven Pannananda at the recent concluded > > 3-month retreat held at Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary, Taiping, > Malaysia: > > > > http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Pa_Auk/Taiping_Retreat_2009/index.htm <...> > Hello silananda, > > Is there a list of the titles - this would be helpful for those of us who > may wish to listen to particular talks, but not have to download the entire > number. > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #98578 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:11 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) christine_fo... Hello KenH, I'm sure Jon isn't at all perturbed - and if he is, he is quite able to discuss the matter with Suan himself. Why express your opinion based on some memory you have of an alleged post by Suan to Alex in the past? What has this to do with your current display of dosa towards him? And what does it have to do with this thread? And as for your personal remarks about Alex .... Are you feeling all right Ken? karuna Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #98579 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:17 am Subject: Atthasalini discussion szmicio Dear friends, Atthasalini states: an object that has entered the avenue of thought. 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, or possessing the desirable portion of an object as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquillity as proximate cause. (1) There is no such thing as feeling in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of experiencing. (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object is obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, and say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or neutral feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) the object.'> ------------------------------------ 1) Atth: Because contact arises by means of suitable attention, or 'adverting,' L: What the 'adverting' means here? Is it pancadvaravajjana or manodvaravajjana-citta that adverts to object? --- 2) Atth: 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic. L: 'It has experiencing as characteristic' not the feeling but experiencing, why this distiction was made? It is citta that is a leader in experiencing and all cetasikas also support the citta in experiencing an object. And here there was said the vedana has the characteristic of experience. --- 3) Atth: It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, or possessing the desirable portion of an object as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquillity as proximate cause L: What is tranquillity here? is it this tantra.... cetasika that is upekkha? --- 4) Atth: (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object is obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, and say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or neutral feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) the object.' L: So vedana always enjoys its object? No matter is it pleasant or not? My best wishes Lukas P.s This is chapter 4.1 I think so. But I dont know which page exactly. #98580 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:05 am Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) kenhowardau Hi Chris, ------------- C: > I'm sure Jon isn't at all perturbed ------------- Yes, so am I. Perfectly sure! :-) --------------------- C: > - and if he is, he is quite able to discuss the matter with Suan himself. Why express your opinion based on some memory you have of an alleged post by Suan to Alex in the past? -------------------- Why not? I saw it as a valid way of making a point. I could just as easily have referred to a more recent post from Suan in which he congratulated and encouraged Robert E. Robert E has openly (and perfectly reasonably) admitted to not being a fan of the Abhidhamma and commentaries; he doubts there are such things as paramattha dhammas (etc. etc). So why did Suan single him out for praise? In preference to DSG's more avid Dhamma students! As far as Dhamma study is concerned the only thing Suan and Robert have in common is their commitment to formal meditation. That was my point. ----------------------------- C: > What has this to do with your current display of dosa towards him? ----------------------------- I'm sorry if it looked like a display of dosa. I like to think I have good will towards everyone at DSG, including Suan. --------------------------------------- C: > And what does it have to do with this thread? And as for your personal remarks about Alex .... Are you feeling all right Ken? --------------------------------------- There was nothing in my remarks that Alex would deny, and I have said the same sorts of things directly to him without causing any great offence. It wasn't meant as an attack of any kind, just to show that he and Suan had *almost* nothing in common as far as their actual understanding of the Dhamma was concerned. Yes, I am feeling all right, but now you've got me a little worried. :-) Let's wait and see if Suan and Alex have seen my post as a display of dosa. Ken H #98581 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:20 am Subject: Re: Be here now scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "p.s. You still don't wish you'd taken the red pill, do you?" Scott: The coolest part first. I'm thinking that this is reference to The Matrix (?). Taking the red pill allowed someone's body to be found and taken 'off-line' and he or she 'awakens' out of the matrix, seeing how things 'really are.' So, did you mean 'blue pill', in which case, something I'm saying might be making you think I'm somehow wanting to go back and unknow a few things. Or if you did mean 'red pill' then I guess the same thing can be read into the above - that I did take it and didn't really want to or am wishing I hadn't. And this would be popular culture as as Dhamma allegory, I'm thinking (since it fits, I guess). I'd be interested if you could just clarify a wee bit, Mike, you know, how I'm coming across here - there might be some good advice in the statement. I'm happy to be discussing with you (since you were one of the original crew who have been good friends when I arrived here on this ship). M: "I'd say that 'giving' can refer either to the whole conventional seeming event of an act of charity (obviously a pa~n~natti) or to the mental factor of daana; or, best of all, daana ~naa.na sampayutta. I think it's necessary to know and recognize the distinctions (theoretically, I mean) to properly understand the texts or everyday life." Scott: Agreed. M: "Well, we have friends who visit the 'holy sites', make offerings to bhikkhus and circumambulate stupas, and I certainly hope that these activities 'contain' some kusala kamma. I think I recall these activities being encouraged in the texts, but I don't have a citation off-hand. The great danger, as I see it, lies in expecting these conventional activities to yield insight. This, I think, is a working description of silabbataparamassa (spelling correction gratefully welcomed)." Scott: I agree. Do you think this was somehow meant as a balm for some? I'm not knocking those who do this sort of thing, you understand. I don't find it meaningful for myself. This could be a function of 'missing dhammaa' in me, such that the kusala dhammaa which such an act entails (if it does) don't arise for me. I'd feel a total hypocrite to be circumambulating a stupa when the impetus to do so isn't in me. What do you think? I know you are discussing this in another thread, and so this is 'bleed-over', but what kusala kamma might be in purposefully walking around something? M: "I think that conditions--such as recollection (a dhamma) of the Buddha's (a pa~n~natti) speech serving as natural decisive support condition for kusala kamma (as Sarah mentioned recently)--are more than enough to account for such instructions (unless you believe that "the Buddha only taught satipa.t.thaana"--I obviously don't). The Buddha (obviously) didn't have to think that 'beings' are ultimately real to know that recollection of his speech could become a factor of--and a condition for--the arising of future kusala kamma. And he surely knew that those conditions wouldn't always include the factor of amoha." Scott: I've mystified myself on this matter before, thinking about 'speech' as well, and suggesting that it is 'sound' that is paramattha while 'speech' is pa~n~natti. Yes, I know this is nonsense, but the Buddha's teaching was delivered in the form mind-produced ruupa, which was repeated, and then transformed into visible-object when it was written down. Somehow the content is relevant, of course, but it is pa~n~natti. Thinking about coherent textual Dhamma, or heard-Dhamma, as one goes about the world, can condition satipa.t.thaana somehow, I think. M: "Unlike some of us, I think there's a great deal of encouragement of kusala kamma in the texts that aren't direct encouragements to the development of insight. Amoha isn't a universal beautiful factor. Kusala kamma can occur without it and, by my reading of the texts, the Buddha often encouraged kusala kamma--with or without understanding." Scott: Interesting. How will it be known that it is kusala? How can I keep from just doing the wrong thing? What if I misunderstand the texts and wind up walking slowly or whatever and thinking its of any use? M: "What if someone offered you something that, if you took it, would toss out the window all your self respect and every value you've every held dear, but would tell you the truth? It would be a brave, new world, wouldn't it? That, as I see it, is what the texts are for. To help us first to find 'our' way then to make 'our' way (conventionally speaking, of course)." Scott: Yeah, I like this, Mike. The Dhamma offers just what you say. In The Matrix, the 'awakening' that is depicted is shown to be a matter of noticing things aren't as they seem. And, in a way, this heralds a whole chain of events and involves a whole set of other factors and forces, and even an illusory 'choice' - red pill versus blue pill. Coming across the Dhamma is like this. One day you're minding your own business and then, the next, everything is differnent but there is a lot to learn and sift through - a lot of really mixed up and weird stuff. Sincerely, Scott. #98582 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:48 am Subject: Phassa szmicio Dear friends, I found this passage from Atthasalini p.79 very good reminder: It reminds me of the 3rd Sermon that Buddha gave to us. Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html <"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.> <"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. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.> ------- My best wishes Lukas #98583 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: toothstick again. nilovg Dear Mike, I came across another text about toothsticks and thought of you. Op 19-jun-2009, om 22:32 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > I think he spoke in a great many other ways on a great many other > topics, often > with no hidden meaning 'to be drawn out' (as in the allowing of the > toothstick). Of course the entire body of the teachings circles > round and > directs toward insight, no question in my mind. ------ N: Dispeller of Delusion II (p. 61, no 1658): about dantaka.t.thadaana, gifts of toothsticks. It is explained: <...Many tooth sticks are not to be taken from the tooth-stick repository by one bhikkhu. One is to be taken singly each day...> This helps to be someone who is contented with little, not be greedy or selfish. All this is to help the monks to have kusala citta instead of akusala citta, even in small matters. He should know 'his own' citta. In reality there are only citta, cetasika and ruupa when we speak and think of person. Now I elaborate a little about satipa.t.thaana, but I know you agree. We can connect this passage with the satipa.t.thaanasutta where it is said that the Bhikkhu should be mindful during all his activities. One bhikkhu may be forgetful when taking out a toothstick, another one may remember the Buddha's words to be mindful in all his actions. The latter will know the different cittas that arise because of conditions and he will learn that citta does not belong to him. I quote the Survey passage Lukas posted today: Survey:He taught the four 'Applications of Mindfulness'. Mindfulness of citta (cittanupassana satipatthana) means that, when there is for instance seeing, sati is mindful, non-forgetful, of its characteristic. We should investigate, study and apply our attention to the reality of seeing so that we shall gradually have more understanding of it. We can come to know it as the element which experiences what is appearing through the eyes. -------- Mike quoting me: So we cannot be reminded enough to consider > citta, cetasika and ruupa. No, and I think we're all considerably indebted to you, Khun Sujin, Sarah and Jon for your constant reminders. Thanks. ----- N: Actually all questions and remarks on this list are good reminders. ---- Nina. #98584 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 20-jun-2009, om 4:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken, if you meditated you would just plain know this is untrue. When > doing walking meditation, one, of course, is paying most attention > to what > is involved in walking, and, after a while, only that is observed, > namely > bodily sensations, especially earth (solidity) and air (motion), > constant > change, cetana as an impersonal impulsion, etc. It is fascinating - > quite > amazing really, and along with it, increasing mindfulness and deep > calm. ------- N: When walking also seeing arises, and visible object, and feeling. I would say: whatever reality arises because of its own conditions is the object of mindfulness. Then we shall better understand that nobody can direct the arising of any reality, including sati. In the beginning we still think of my seeing, but when we truly consider that seeing could not arise without visible object and eyesense, it slowly becomes clearer that there is no 'me' here and over there is seeing. No idea of 'me' looking at seeing or paying attention to seeing. I think that understanding is the aim, not calm, since only understanding can eradicate the wrong view of self. Nina. #98585 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? (was, Re: effort.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/20/2009 10:20:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 20-jun-2009, om 4:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken, if you meditated you would just plain know this is untrue. When > doing walking meditation, one, of course, is paying most attention > to what > is involved in walking, and, after a while, only that is observed, > namely > bodily sensations, especially earth (solidity) and air (motion), > constant > change, cetana as an impersonal impulsion, etc. It is fascinating - > quite > amazing really, and along with it, increasing mindfulness and deep > calm. ------- N: When walking also seeing arises, and visible object, and feeling. I would say: whatever reality arises because of its own conditions is the object of mindfulness. Then we shall better understand that nobody can direct the arising of any reality, including sati. In the beginning we still think of my seeing, but when we truly consider that seeing could not arise without visible object and eyesense, it slowly becomes clearer that there is no 'me' here and over there is seeing. No idea of 'me' looking at seeing or paying attention to seeing. I think that understanding is the aim, not calm, since only understanding can eradicate the wrong view of self. Nina. =========================== With the moderate restriction of the scope of attention, more detail is observed and there is an enormous increase in clarity, and, moreover, all other phenomena also come with range and are seen clearly, and if one does this, the matter becomes indisputable. With metta, Howard The Body Field /Monks, whoever develops & pursues mindfulness immersed in the body encompasses whatever skillful qualities are on the side of clear knowing. Just as whoever pervades the great ocean with his awareness encompasses whatever rivulets flow down into the ocean, in the same way, whoever develops & pursues mindfulness immersed in the body encompasses whatever skillful qualities are on the side of clear knowing./ (From the Kayagata-sati Sutta) #98586 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasalini discussion nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-jun-2009, om 9:17 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Atthasalini states: > > 'adverting,' and through some faculty (i.e., eye, etc.), and > immediately in the object that has been prepared by consciousness, > therefore contact has as its an object that has > entered the avenue of thought. > > 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as > characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, or possessing the > desirable portion of an object as function, (3) taste of the mental > properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquillity as proximate cause. > > (1) There is no such thing as feeling in the four planes of > existence without the characteristic of experiencing. > > (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object is > obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, and > say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or neutral > feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) the object.'> > ------------------------------------ > > 1) Atth: Because contact arises by means of suitable attention, or > 'adverting,' > > L: What the 'adverting' means here? Is it pancadvaravajjana or > manodvaravajjana-citta that adverts to object? -------- N: No, contact accompanies each and every citta. It assists the citta in cognizing the object. > The word adverting indicates here the citta that cognizes the > object and at the same time phassa assists it. > --- > 2) Atth: 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) > experiencing as characteristic. > > L: 'It has experiencing as characteristic' not the feeling but > experiencing, why this distinction was made? It is citta that is a > leader in experiencing and all cetasikas also support the citta in > experiencing an object. And here there was said the vedana has the > characteristic of experience. ------- N: This is a question of words. Citta is, as you say, the principal, and feeling experiences the flavour of the object, it savours the object. You can also say: feeling feels. ------------ > > --- > 3) L: Atth: It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying > as function, or possessing the desirable portion of an object as > function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and > (4) tranquillity as proximate cause > > L: What is tranquillity here? is it this tantra.... cetasika that > is upekkha? -------- N: No, in this context of 'Moral consciousness in the world of Sense'(Atth , Expositor, p. 145) it refers to feeling that is kusala. Tranquillity that is passadhi, (tranquillity of body, the mental body, of cetasika) arising with sobhana cittas, is the proximate cause of happy feeling, according to the Atth. > > --- > 4) Atth: (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object > is obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, > and say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or > neutral feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) > the object.' > > L: So vedana always enjoys its object? No matter is it pleasant or > not? ------ N: The translation enjoyment of anubhavana is not so clear. Anubhavana is experiencing, even of suffering, according to PED. There is the simile of the cook who only tastes a portion of the food and the King (feeling) enjoys the taste of the object. He fully savours or experiences the flavour of the food. ------- Nina. #98587 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:19 am Subject: Re: Atthasalini discussion sprlrt Dear Lukas, I think that the details K. Sujin gives on the SPD Appendix on cetasikas should keep you busy for awhile :-) anyway, here are my A's to your Q's Alberto ------------------------------------ 1) Atth: Because contact arises by means of suitable attention, or 'adverting,' L: What the 'adverting' means here? Is it pancadvaravajjana or manodvaravajjana-citta that adverts to object? A: Neither, it's parikkhate, inspecting, I think: Tajjaasamannaahaarena pana indriyena ca parikkhate visaye anantaraayena uppajjanato esa aapaathagata-visaya-pada.t.thaanoti vuccati. --- 2) Atth: 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic. L: 'It has experiencing as characteristic' not the feeling but experiencing, why this distiction was made? It is citta that is a leader in experiencing and all cetasikas also support the citta in experiencing an object. And here there was said the vedana has the characteristic of experience. A: vedana: vedayata_lakkhan (it feels or it experiences fully (a feeling for) the arammana) citta (viana): vijnana_lakkhan (it knows fully the arammana) Vedana also knows the arammana and citta also feels or experiences it, but not as fully. --- 3) Atth: It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, or possessing the desirable portion of an object as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquillity as proximate cause L: What is tranquillity here? is it this tantra.... cetasika that is upekkha? A: Passaddhi_padatthna. This is the kamavacara kusala chapter, with these eight cittas vedana cetasika arises together with kaya-passaddhi cetasika, calmness, and they condition each other by sampayutta, association condition, and several other paccayas as well. --- 4) Atth: (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object is obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, and say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or neutral feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) the object.' L: So vedana always enjoys its object? No matter is it pleasant or not? A: This is vedana cetasika function or purpose or scope, rasa, whenever it arises. #98588 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:11 am Subject: Atthasalini discussion nichiconn Dear Lukas, friends, 1) Atth: Because contact arises by means of suitable attention, or 'adverting,' L: What the 'adverting' means here? Is it pancadvaravajjana or manodvaravajjana-citta that adverts to object? c: Atth. continues: and *through some faculty (i.e., eye, etc.)*, and immediately in the object that has been prepared by consciousness, therefore contact has as its an object that has entered the avenue of thought. I think it would be either door. Thru the five sense faculties or thru the mind faculty & in either case, the immediately preceding citta was the arrest bhavanga. I think there must be a degree of calm to our bhavanga since we have been born in this realm; that it must have at least one good root? --- 2) Atth: 'Feeling' {Dhs $3} is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic. L: 'It has experiencing as characteristic' not the feeling but experiencing, why this distiction was made? It is citta that is a leader in experiencing and all cetasikas also support the citta in experiencing an object. And here there was said the vedana has the characteristic of experience. c: each cetasika would experience the object by way of it's own characteristic functioning... dosa would not care, for instance, that it was an abhidhamma text, it would just be irritation regardless... the way lobha doesn't care but will attach to anything. --- 3) Atth: It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, or possessing the desirable portion of an object as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquillity as proximate cause L: What is tranquillity here? is it this tantra.... cetasika that is upekkha? c: i'm passing on this one. --- 4) Atth: (2) If it be said that the function of enjoying the object is obtained only in pleasurable feeling, we reject that opinion, and say: - 'Let it be pleasurable feeling or painful feeling or neutral feeling - all have the function of enjoying (anubhavana) the object.' L: So vedana always enjoys its object? No matter is it pleasant or not? c: If it is conditioned, it is dukkha. This one reminds me of the leper who likes to scratch and burn; yes, like you say in the other post, "the all is aflame". Rupa is afflicted/molested. Yet if rupa does not experience, what is bodily feeling? The 'body' of the mental aggregate, I think. Painful then must be 'contact with resistance'? I forget the term now. --- L: This is chapter 4.1 I think so. But I dont know which page exactly. c: Page 145. Also, as to Q1 above, this from the first part (p141) of the chapter: - so, yeah, pretty sure "either door". Nice talking with you again, connie # From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: toothstick again. szmicio Dear Nina, What is toothstick? ;> > N: Dispeller of Delusion II (p. 61, no 1658): > about dantaka.t.thadaana, gifts of toothsticks. It is explained: > <...Many tooth sticks are not to be taken from the tooth-stick > repository by one bhikkhu. One is to be taken singly each day...> > This helps to be someone who is contented with little, not be greedy > or selfish. All this is to help the monks to have kusala citta > instead of akusala citta, even in small matters. L: Nice to hear that. It support me, because I doubt again and again. I am constantly thinking that maybe the way is to change akusala for kusala. And then I want to change things. I am constantly trying to change everythig, because I dont like it. I am trying to speak in this or that way, but it only indicates there is no understanding. The example you gave reminds me that it is not the way, but Self that want change things and how subtle the development of kusala really is. Not by will, but by this subtle and suprising reminders. I am grateful to Buddha that he thought for so many years. > I quote the Survey passage Lukas posted today: > > Survey:He taught the four 'Applications of Mindfulness'. Mindfulness > of citta (cittanupassana satipatthana) means that, when there is for > instance seeing, sati is mindful, non-forgetful, of its > characteristic. We should investigate, study and apply our attention > to the reality of seeing so that we shall gradually have more > understanding of it. We can come to know it as the element which > experiences what is appearing through the eyes. > -------- L: I like todays Atthasalini: especially this: touching by contact, consciousness experiences by feeling, perceives by perception, wills by volition...touched one feels, touched one perceives, touched one wills. Connie, Alberto thank you for your answer regarding atthasalini discussion, i will rise another question till I read Nina's cetasikas on phassa first. The example Nina gave about cook and king actualy clears this 'experience' matter. But still citta remains the chief. My best wishes Lukas #98590 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). m_nease Hi Nina, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Well, this is really interesting. This is a pretty elementary > > question, I guess. But does this mean that consciousness never > > 'gains a footing' > > with concept as a basis? I do realize that concept isn't an > > element. But surely it is sometimes the object of mind- or > > mind-consciousness-element? Or no? > > > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >> sutta 18. > >> > >> Walshe: > >> DN 33.1.11(18) 'Four stations of consciousness > >> (vi~n~naa.na-.t.thitiyo): Consciousness gains a footing either (a) in > >> relation to materiality, with materiality as object and basis, as a > >> place of enjoyment, or similarly in regard to (b) feelings, (c) > >> perceptions of (d) mental formations, and there it grows, increases > >> and flourishes. > -------- > N: In this context of the fours, the four khandhas other than > vi~n~naa.nakkhandha are classified as the foundation or platform for > consciousness. The subco mentions that vi~n~naa.nakkhandha is not > mentioned as the fifth, since the classification is by fours. > Moreover, the text points to the D.O. OK--no pa.n.nattiyo in the D.O.-- > I think that if there were no realities, one could not think of > concepts. Of course not-- > One forms up concepts on account of thinking about visible > object, sound, etc. Yes, or rather formations occur due to 'thinking about visible object, sound, etc.' with delusion. mike #98591 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Fours (18). m_nease Hi Connie, nichiconn wrote: > > > So, yes, I'd say... (c) perceptions. > > > Also tho, for vi~n~naa.na, for the sense door part, it's just the eye, > > > etc. consciousness, which wouldn't have anything to do with > perception. Interesting point. So what could 'visible form, cognizable to the eye' have to do with atta-sa~n~naa? Unless the 'sa~n~naa' in 'atta-sa~n~naa' is a special sense of the word, different from 'sa~n~naa khandha'. Maybe just terminology? I don't understand the relationship--if any--between pa.n.natti and sa~n~naa-khandha. mike #98592 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:40 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? nichiconn Hi, Chris, Have you a new dog by now? I should apologize. Your post to Ken made me laugh. I'm sure Suan isn't at all perturbed - and if he is, he is quite able to discuss the matter with Ken himself. Why express your dosa interspersed opinion based on some perceived attack to your own ritualistic meditation practice? And then smile. Karuna. Yes, 'to each their own'. so all of that, with molehills of metta, too, connie ---The trouble is that you believe in your own thinking--- ps. Dosa naturally arises with thoughts of "social workers" involved, sorry! Nothing personal, just my own junk. Maybe if i put that aside and you put aside your inclination to 'help' matters that needn't concern anyone, we could discuss Dhamma? If not, we might just laugh that I feel the need to defend a lawyer! -peace, c. #98593 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be here now m_nease Hi Scott, Scott wrote: > M: "p.s. You still don't wish you'd taken the red pill, do you?" > > Scott: The coolest part first. I'm thinking that this is reference to > The Matrix (?). Right-- > Taking the red pill allowed someone's body to be found > and taken 'off-line' and he or she 'awakens' out of the matrix, seeing > how things 'really are.' > > So, did you mean 'blue pill', in which case, something I'm saying might > be making you think I'm somehow wanting to go back and unknow a few > things. Or if you did mean 'red pill' then I guess the same thing can be > read into the above - that I did take it and didn't really want to or am > wishing I hadn't. And this would be popular culture as as Dhamma > allegory, I'm thinking (since it fits, I guess). Yeah, the red pill (subjectively) made you see things the way they 'actually were' (if I remember correctly). > I'd be interested if you could just clarify a wee bit, Mike, you know, > how I'm coming across here - there might be some good advice in the > statement. I'm happy to be discussing with you (since you were one of > the original crew who have been good friends when I arrived here on this > ship). Ditto! And no, I wasn't seriously suggesting that you'd like to 'unknow' anything. Just a brief flight of fancy. > M: "I'd say that 'giving' can refer either to the whole conventional > seeming event of an act of charity (obviously a pa~n~natti) or to the > mental factor of daana; or, best of all, daana ~naa.na sampayutta. I > think it's necessary to know and recognize the distinctions > (theoretically, I mean) to properly understand the texts or everyday life." > > Scott: Agreed. > > M: "Well, we have friends who visit the 'holy sites', make offerings to > bhikkhus and circumambulate stupas, and I certainly hope that these > activities 'contain' some kusala kamma. I think I recall these > activities being encouraged in the texts, but I don't have a citation > off-hand. The great danger, as I see it, lies in expecting these > conventional activities to yield insight. This, I think, is a working > description of silabbataparamassa (spelling correction gratefully > welcomed)." > > Scott: I agree. Do you think this was somehow meant as a balm for some? > I'm not knocking those who do this sort of thing, you understand. I > don't find it meaningful for myself. This could be a function of > 'missing dhammaa' in me, such that the kusala dhammaa which such an act > entails (if it does) don't arise for me. I'd feel a total hypocrite to > be circumambulating a stupa when the impetus to do so isn't in me. What > do you think? I know you are discussing this in another thread, and so > this is 'bleed-over', but what kusala kamma might be in purposefully > walking around something? Well, it seems likely to me that such a practice would bring to mind '...those priests and contemplatives...', which might be condition the arising of one or more moments of sa"nghanusati, I guess. Just speculation on my part, but it does seem reasonable to me. > M: "I think that conditions--such as recollection (a dhamma) of the > Buddha's (a pa~n~natti) speech serving as natural decisive support > condition for kusala kamma (as Sarah mentioned recently)--are more than > enough to account for such instructions (unless you believe that "the > Buddha only taught satipa.t.thaana"--I obviously don't). The Buddha > (obviously) didn't have to think that 'beings' are ultimately real to > know that recollection of his speech could become a factor > of--and a condition for--the arising of future kusala kamma. And he > surely knew that those conditions wouldn't always include the factor of > amoha." > > Scott: I've mystified myself on this matter before, thinking about > 'speech' as well, and suggesting that it is 'sound' that is paramattha > while 'speech' is pa~n~natti. Yes, I know this is nonsense, but the > Buddha's teaching was delivered in the form mind-produced ruupa, which > was repeated, and then transformed into visible-object when it was > written down. Somehow the content is relevant, of course, but it is > pa~n~natti. Thinking about coherent textual Dhamma, or heard-Dhamma, as > one goes about the world, can condition satipa.t.thaana somehow, I think. I think this is made clear in the texts. By the way, if you're referring to 'right speech', doesn't that refer ultimately to an abstinence? Rather than a more conventional designation such as 'a discourse by the Buddha must be right speech', I mean. > M: "Unlike some of us, I think there's a great deal of encouragement of > kusala kamma in the texts that aren't direct encouragements to the > development of insight. Amoha isn't a universal beautiful factor. Kusala > kamma can occur without it and, by my reading of the texts, the Buddha > often encouraged kusala kamma--with or without understanding." > > Scott: Interesting. How will it be known that it is kusala? How can I > keep from just doing the wrong thing? What if I misunderstand the texts > and wind up walking slowly or whatever and thinking its of any use? Hearing and reflecting on the true Dhamma is the answer, I think. This could counteract hearing that walking around in slow motion will generate insight, for example. I think this all involves right view and wise attention, but I'm afraid I'm not competent to explain just how. > M: "What if someone offered you something that, if you took it, would > toss out the window all your self respect and every value you've every > held dear, but would tell you the truth? It would be a brave, new world, > wouldn't it? That, as I see it, is what the texts are for. To help us > first to find 'our' way then to make 'our' way (conventionally speaking, > of course)." > > Scott: Yeah, I like this, Mike. The Dhamma offers just what you say. In > The Matrix, the 'awakening' that is depicted is shown to be a matter of > noticing things aren't as they seem. And, in a way, this heralds a whole > chain of events and involves a whole set of other factors and forces, > and even an illusory 'choice' - red pill versus blue pill. Coming across > the Dhamma is like this. One day you're minding your own business and > then, the next, everything is differnent but there is a lot to learn and > sift through - a lot of really mixed up and weird stuff. Yes, I'd add counterintuitive to mixed up and weird. The Dhamma as I see it turns the values of the world upside down. mike #98594 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:06 pm Subject: Description or doctrine/instruction? nichiconn Hi Howard, I think that understanding is the aim, not calm, since only understanding can eradicate the wrong view of self. Nina. =========================== Howard: With the moderate restriction of the scope of attention, more detail is observed and there is an enormous increase in clarity, and, moreover, all other phenomena also come with range and are seen clearly, and if one does this, the matter becomes indisputable. ====== Connie: If I may ask without offending you, what is this "detail"? What do you mean "restriction of the scope of attention"... it is confusing to me when I consider there is only ever one object of attention. Lastly, only visible object phenomena is seen & other phenomena come within range of other faculties anyway, so I don't know what you mean in the last part, either. thanks, connie #98595 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:11 pm Subject: Atthasalini discussion nichiconn Dear Nina, Thanks for the correction! I got that one wrong. connie > 1) Atth: Because contact arises by means of suitable attention, or > 'adverting,' > > L: What the 'adverting' means here? Is it pancadvaravajjana or > manodvaravajjana-citta that adverts to object? -------- N: No, contact accompanies each and every citta. It assists the citta in cognizing the object. > The word adverting indicates here the citta that cognizes the > object and at the same time phassa assists it. > --- #98596 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: toothstick again. m_nease Hi Nina, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Mike, > I came across another text about toothsticks and thought of you. > Op 19-jun-2009, om 22:32 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > > > I think he spoke in a great many other ways on a great many other > > topics, often > > with no hidden meaning 'to be drawn out' (as in the allowing of the > > toothstick). Of course the entire body of the teachings circles > > round and > > directs toward insight, no question in my mind. > ------ > N: Dispeller of Delusion II (p. 61, no 1658): > about dantaka.t.thadaana, gifts of toothsticks. It is explained: > <...Many tooth sticks are not to be taken from the tooth-stick > repository by one bhikkhu. One is to be taken singly each day...> Yes, toothsticks were kind of a big deal at the time, partly because, once they'd been allowed, they became a potential 'daana' that anyone could fashion and offer to a bhikkhu. There was a constant demand (because they are--I think--generally only used once), and young saama.neras with little else to offer could always offer toothsticks to their elders. > This helps to be someone who is contented with little, not be greedy > or selfish. All this is to help the monks to have kusala citta > instead of akusala citta, even in small matters. > He should know 'his own' citta. In reality there are only citta, > cetasika and ruupa when we speak and think of person. Certainly. > Now I elaborate a little about satipa.t.thaana, but I know you agree. > We can connect this passage with the satipa.t.thaanasutta where it is > said that the Bhikkhu should be mindful during all his activities. > One bhikkhu may be forgetful when taking out a toothstick, another > one may remember the Buddha's words to be mindful in all his actions. > The latter will know the different cittas that arise because of > conditions and he will learn that citta does not belong to him. > I quote the Survey passage Lukas posted today: > > Survey:He taught the four 'Applications of Mindfulness'. Mindfulness > of citta (cittanupassana satipatthana) means that, when there is for > instance seeing, sati is mindful, non-forgetful, of its > characteristic. We should investigate, study and apply our attention > to the reality of seeing so that we shall gradually have more > understanding of it. We can come to know it as the element which > experiences what is appearing through the eyes. Sure-- > Mike quoting me: So we cannot be reminded enough to consider > > citta, cetasika and ruupa. > > No, and I think we're all considerably indebted to you, Khun Sujin, > Sarah and Jon for your constant reminders. Thanks. > ----- > N: Actually all questions and remarks on this list are good reminders. They certainly can be--as can pretty much anything (except sex), I think. It all depends on wise attention, doesn't it? Which depends on...? mike #98597 From: "m_nease" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:21 pm Subject: Re: Be here now m_nease Correction--the blue pill (subjectively) made you see things the way they 'actually were' (if I remember correctly). But enough with pills already eh? mike #98598 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Description or doctrine/instruction? christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi, Chris, > > Have you a new dog by now? > > I should apologize. Your post to Ken made me laugh. > > I'm sure Suan isn't at all perturbed - and if he is, he is quite able to discuss the matter with Ken himself. > Why express your dosa interspersed opinion based on some perceived attack to your own ritualistic meditation practice? > > And then smile. Karuna. Yes, 'to each their own'. > > so all of that, with molehills of metta, too, > connie > > ---The trouble is that you believe in your own thinking--- > > ps. Dosa naturally arises with thoughts of "social workers" involved, sorry! Nothing personal, just my own junk. Maybe if i put that aside and you put aside your inclination to 'help' matters that needn't concern anyone, we could discuss Dhamma? If not, we might just laugh that I feel the need to defend a lawyer! -peace, c. > Hello KenH, connie, Yes, I did laugh. I was having a bad night - On another list, I was having an "interesting exchange" with a mahayana bhikshuni about killing rats and insects. We each thought we were right, though we had opposing views. Ken got a swipe and the Venerable Bhikshuni got respectful disagreement. Thanks Ken! (and sorry!). No I haven't got another dog - I am currently staying with my mother and brother and have been adopted by their large cross-bred labrador, who seems to believe that status-wise I'm the new pup. so many lessons in humility - so much to learn. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #98599 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Description or doctrine/instruction? upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 6/20/2009 4:08:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Howard: With the moderate restriction of the scope of attention, more detail is observed and there is an enormous increase in clarity, and, moreover, all other phenomena also come with range and are seen clearly, and if one does this, the matter becomes indisputable. ====== Connie: If I may ask without offending you, what is this "detail"? ------------------------------------------ If we look at a coat, we may see the coat as a whole, or we may see patterns within it, or we may see individual threads, and this is a gradation of increasing detail. -------------------------------------------- What do you mean "restriction of the scope of attention"... it is confusing to me when I consider there is only ever one object of attention. ------------------------------------------- There is a flow of consciousness, or sequence of cittas as you prefer, and I agree that at any moment there is but one object of consciousness, but attention varies in strength, and it can be stronger on objects of one sort than on other sorts. I spoke not of a scope of consciousness but of a scope of attention. One can be alternatingly seeing and hearing, for example, but attending more carefully to the hearing, or, as we say informally, "concentrating on the hearing." When there is careful paying of attention to a teaching, for example, the effect is quite different than when one gives equal attention to other things. Attention is a very important matter. -------------------------------------------- Lastly, only visible object phenomena is seen & other phenomena come within range of other faculties anyway, so I don't know what you mean in the last part, either. thanks, ----------------------------------------------------- Okay. The bottom line on all this is that the Buddha taught people that they *should* meditate, and if one does so, the reality and nature of it require no explanation by another. ======================= With metta, Howard Seamless /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous)