#110800 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) truth_aerator Hello Azita, all, >Azita: I guess if we're 'hoping' for anything to do with >development of kusala, then that would be akusala,dont you think? >No amount of hoping or wishing will get us more kusala. It is not a matter of hope, but of planting the right conditions for right effects to grow and mature in their own time. Without putting in the causes, effects (such as panna) will not grow. And what are the causes to be put in for kusala to arise? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. But the Buddha has talked about serious effort too many times and so did the VsM. ""And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html ================================================================== If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die during the day, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html With Metta, Alex #110801 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:45 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- KH: >> It seems to me as if we are in a coma. Good friends visiting us in hospital gently urge us to wake up to the real world, but we don't see the need. We think this is the real world. >> RE: > Well, from one comatose patient to another, I think we can take some cues from the nature of our experience as it is and move in the direction of clarity without inventing more convoluted stories about the construction of reality than we already have in our delusory state. ---- When you say "convoluted stories about the construction of reality" are you referring to the Abhidhamma? You wouldn't be the first Buddhist meditator to refer to it that way, and you won't be the last. All Buddhist meditators find themselves in the invidious position of having to disparage the very Dhamma they profess to be learning. ------------------ RE: > Perhaps it is simply looking more closely and carefully and seeing what is really happening that is necessary to wake up, ------------------ You can look for a hundred years, time and again, lifetime after lifetime, but you will never know the Dhamma that way. The only way is to hear it from someone else. ----------------------- RE: > rather than making up an even more complex explanation. ----------------------- The complex explanation you are referring to is "the way things are." The Buddha never said it would be easy for people like us, but he taught it anyway. He taught it in the knowledge that it could sink in to some degree - some gradual progress would be possible. There is a way out of this coma! :-) Ken H #110802 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment philofillet Hi Ari > > Many respected Dhamma teachers, many books on meditation, suggest that we should "cut off at feeling", that is where the chain reaction that leads to clinging starts. > > *This cutting off of a feeling, I would not know how to do, Ph: I'll write more later, and perhaps ask others to join, because it's always interested me something Sarah said in a recorded talk, but not cutting off "of",but cutting off "at", and not a forceful cutting off, but just dropping the process of proliferation that starts arising from pleasant or unpleasant feelings. >>exactly. I do my meditation in 20 minute segments, and by the second segment, I kind of go to a place in my mind that seems above the chatter, and where I can get some peace of mind. I think it's called "Blissing out" and not desirable, but I'll keep it, as it is often the best part of my day. Ph: I do this too. I think it's wise. The mind is so accustomed to feeding on sense objects, if it learns to feed on pleasant sensations during meditation, it is healthier food. People who disagree with this have good Pali Canon (the Buddha's teaching) text-based reasons for doing so, but my main interest is in being happy and not doing harmful things, and the deeper, technically correct teachings that they point out don't deter me from those goals. More later. How was Hawaii? Did you go yet? Metta, Phil #110803 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:17 pm Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------ KH: >> I think it is because only panna - right understanding of nama and rupa - leads to enlightenment. >> A: > And what are the causes for it to be developed? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. --------- Right understanding is even more lovely than that. No matter whether you are in a temple or in a house of ill repute, right understanding *of the way things are in ultimate reality* is sublime. ----------------- A: > But the Buddha has talked about serious effort too many times and so did the VsM. ----------------- Serious right effort is conventionally a downer, isn't it? It is no fun - an imposition - an onerous obligation. On the other hand, right effort of the ultimate "here and now" variety" is a marvel. ------------------------- > ""And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow." ------------------ In any moment of right understanding citta goes against the flow, and there is no craving or aversion. Ken H #110804 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:49 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- KH: >> A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. >> RE: > That is not directing and controlling dhammas. It is simply taking a look at what is there, which is what you advocate anyway, just in a different setting. ----- "Taking a look" - call it what you like, it is still something you think you can *do*. ------------------------ KH: >> So he is confusing the real world (of no control) with the conceptual one (of control). >> RE: > Seeing and discerning arising dhammas is not exercising control. ------------------------- I don't even know what it would mean to "see and discern arising dhammas." That's the sort of thing meditation teachers tell you to do. I say it is just double talk (psychobabble). ----------------- RE: > You just have a proprietary view of your chosen method of understanding. ----------------- Is there a method? I think you will find the only method the Buddha taught was satipatthana - right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa. That is not something you can do by trying (striving). ------------------------- KH: >> Pantomime vipassana might be fun, but it is the opposite of what the Buddha taught. >> Re: > Your view of this is the opposite of what the Buddha actually said, notwithstanding your negative characterization of meditation. How about "pantomime right understanding" on your part? Just as likely. ------------------------- Yes, that is how Phil pictures me: riding around the outside of a meditation hall on a bicycle, disturbing the occupants with shouts of "There is only nama and rupa!" :-) Ken H #110805 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:08 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------ RE: >>> Can you describe the characteristic of sunnata? >>> KH: >> I think it is described as the void. There can never be a self because every dhamma contains the void. >> RE: > How does a dhamma "contain" the void? What does that mean? Is it void through and through? Is some aspect of it void? The way you put it sounds like a metaphor. -------------- Yes, well, you asked if I could describe sunnata. So I had a go - for what it was worth! :-) As far as I know, the direct experience of anatta is like staring into a void or an abyss. One sees how, where the might have been atta, there is actually nothing. --------------------- <. . .> KH: >> all dhammas have the characteristic of anatta. There cannot be a dhamma without anatta, and there cannot be anatta without a dhamma; they are inseparable." >> RE: > That is fine, but is general. How does the dhamma contain or express or display anatta or sunnata? How is it known when it is discerned? -------------------- Dhammas have characteristic in the same way as conventional elements have. Conventional elements have characteristics of mass and solidity (or liquidity or gaseousness) and so forth. Dhammas are the same in that respect. Ken H #110806 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:17 pm Subject: The 3 Cravings ... bhikkhu5 Friends: The 3 kinds of Craving (Tanh�): The Blessed Buddha once said: There are these three kinds of craving. What three? 1: The Craving for Sensing... 2: The Craving for Becoming... 3: The Craving for Non-Becoming� These are the three kinds of craving! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of these three kinds of craving, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning & leaving all behind. The Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the ceasing of all craving! Comments: Any form of craving is a sign of an underlying addiction: 1: The first kind of sensual craving for sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, thoughts and mental states is fairly obvious, yet still tenacious... 2: The second craving is for becoming things such as: Rich, famous, praised, satisfied, beautiful, young, painless, healthy, strong, respected� etc� 3: The third kind of craving is for not becoming things such as: Sick, poor, criticized, despised, weak, ugly, afflicted, lonely, unsuccessful, dead. etc� The proximate Cause of all Suffering is this Craving, which have to be left! This is the 2nd Noble Truth! Craving means: All kinds of lust, desire, hunger, thirst, longing, urging, yearning for, attraction to, hankering, and hoping. Ceasing of all Craving is ceasing of Suffering! This is the 3rd Noble Truth! Whatever is delighted in creates craving, clinging and thus Suffering! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:58] section 45: The Way. 175: The 3 Cravings ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110807 From: "colette" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ksheri3 Hi Nina, ;) > > Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives > emancipated from dependence on craving and wrong views.> > ------ I like that! It sounds good, doesn't it? toodles, colette #110808 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:03 pm Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, > KH: >> I think it is because only panna - right understanding of > nama and rupa - leads to enlightenment. > >> > > A: > And what are the causes for it to be developed? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. > --------- > >KH: Right understanding is even more lovely than that. > No matter whether you are in a temple or in a house of ill repute, >right understanding *of the way things are in ultimate reality* is >sublime. You haven't answered the question and went sideways. What are the causes for panna to be developed? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. Are there things to be avoided (such as parricide, matricide, creating schism in sangha, killing arahats, indulging in sensuality)? Are there actions to be done, such as: studying and considering? > > ----------------- > A: > But the Buddha has talked about serious effort too many times and so did the VsM. > ----------------- > > Serious right effort is conventionally a downer, isn't it? Tell that to the Buddha, and VsM compiler Ven. Buddhaghosa. > It is no fun - an imposition - an onerous obligation. No fun for the kilesas. With metta, Alex #110809 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:09 pm Subject: Re: mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. kenhowardau Hi Alex, Herman and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Herman, Howard, KenH, all, > > > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." > > There are two extreme ontological views. > 1) View that all is due to matter > 2) View that all is due to mind. > --------- Hi Alex and Herman, ----------- Herman: > > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." >> A: > There are two extreme ontological views. 1) View that all is due to matter 2) View that all is due to mind. ----------- I'd just like to repeat the point I was trying to make at the beginning. Science and Dhamma do not need to clash. They operate in different fields. We often hear of scientists who have theistic beliefs that they keep separate from their scientific beliefs. While I would never liken the Dhamma to theism, I think the same principle applies. Science is concerned with conventional reality, while the Dhamma and theism are concerned with ultimate reality. Ken H #110810 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:22 pm Subject: Re: mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. truth_aerator Hi KenH, (all), >KenH: I'd just like to repeat the point I was trying to make at the >beginning. Science and Dhamma do not need to clash. They operate in >different fields. > >We often hear of scientists who have theistic beliefs that they keep >separate from their scientific beliefs. While I would never liken >the Dhamma to theism, I think the same principle applies. Science is >concerned with conventional reality, while the Dhamma and theism are >concerned with ultimate reality. > > Ken H By saying that "theism are concerned with ultimate reality." are you implying that, lets say, Christianity teaches about ultimate reality? God bless you, and may Jesus be with you, KenH! Yours in Dhamma, Alex #110811 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Colette, Op 18-okt-2010, om 1:40 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > I like that! It sounds good, doesn't it? ------ N: Yea, but it is a long way. First listening to the Dhamma, discussion, and then gradually, gradually, there will be more understanding. Nina. #110812 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:00 pm Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Bong wrote one month before she died a few points she found important to remember: What I should often think of and read time and again, so that I firmly remember it: 1. Is there anybody who does not die? The answer is that there is nobody. 2. It is the truth that kamma produces its own result. If one does what is good, there will be a happy result. If one commits evil, there will be an unhappy result. It is natural to suffer from sickness. 3. Ruupa is not I and if one takes it for self there will be sorrow in time of sickness. 4. Sickness and pain are naama-dhamma. Ruupa does not feel sickness and pain. 5. Sickness and pain are results of kamma. Painful feeling accompanies body-consciousness (which is vipaakacita). 6. I have to be intent on kusala all the time. If the dying- consciousness follows upon kusala citta there will be rebirth in a happy plane of existence. 7. There are only the five khandhas of ruupa, feeling, remembrance, formations (sankhaarakkhandha) and consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). In truth these are there all the time but only one reality can be known at a time. They are dhamma or dhaatu. There is nobody who is their owner, they have arisen and fallen away already. One can begin to understand the perception of non-self (anattaa- sa~n~naa) when satipa.t.thaana arises. One will see that there is nobody who possesses realities or who can control them. --------- She remembered her mothers birthday who became eightysix years old. She was very concerned that her mother would worry about her and therefore she did not want to let her mother know about her sickness. For the same reason she would not tell her other family members. She would not tell those who do not understand that separation is natural, that it is natural that whatever arises must fall away. Someone who has not studied the Dhamma cannot understand that everything is dukkha because it arises and falls away. As Acharn said: There isnt anything, and then there is, and then there is nothing to be found. If one has not studied the Dhamma one believes that happiness lasts. Why is happiness not true happiness? How could it be true happiness when it is impermanent and anattaa. We should be firmly convinced that birth, old age, sickness and death are natural. --------- NIna. #110813 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Siila for laymen, was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 16-okt-2010, om 12:29 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > the insistence students of A.S make on this point has made me > resistant to to the idea of abandoning self-view, because I feel > the immediacy they place on it is misguided...but this sutta shows > me that I should consider what they say with a little more respect... --------- N: I am glad about that. Respect and politeness are forms of siila. There is varita siila, abstaining from evil, and carita siila, doing what is beneficial. The last includes respect, helping others. I was reading to Lodewijk from my 'Buddhism in Daily Life", CH 14, with quote from the sutta on Longknee, and thought immediately of you who is so interested in siila for laymen. Good company is stressed, and I know the importance you attach to this, realizing how much it influences our way of life: We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Eights, Ch VI, 4, Longknee, the Koiyan) that, while the Buddha was staying among the Koiyans, at Kakkarapatta, Longknee (also named Tigerfoot) visited the Buddha. He asked the Buddha whether he would teach Dhamma to people like him, who are householders indulging in sense pleasures. He would like the Buddha to teach him what would lead to happiness here on earth and to happiness in the world to come. The Buddha said that four conditions would lead to advantage and happiness here on earth, namely, alertness, achievement in watchfulness, good company and the even life. As to alertness, he should be deft and tireless in his work, he should have an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and be able to carry out his job. As to accomplishment of watchfulness, we read: What is the accomplishment of watchfulness? Herein, Tigerfoot (Vyagghapajja), whatsoever wealth a householder is in possession of, obtained by dint of effort, collected by strength of arm, by the sweat of his brow, justly acquired by right meanssuch he looks after well by guarding and watching so that kings would not seize it, thieves would not steal it, fire would not burn it, water would not carry it away, nor ill-disposed heirs would remove it. This is the accomplishment of watchfulness... As to good company, the Buddha said that he should consort with those who are full of faith, virtue, charity and wisdom, and try to be likewise. As to the even life, we read: ... Herein a clansman while experiencing both gain and loss in wealth, continues his business serenely, not unduly elated or depressed. He thinks: Thus my income, after deducting loss, will stand (at so much) and my outgoings will not exceed my income... We read that there are four channels for the flowing away of amassed wealth: looseness with women, debauchery in drinking, knavery in dice-play and friendship, companionship and intimacy with evil doers. The Buddha explained that there are four conditions for happiness in the world to come: achievement in faith, namely, confidence in the Buddha, achievement in virtue, that is, abstaining from ill deeds, achievement in generosity and achievement in wisdom. --------- Nina. #110814 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:49 pm Subject: practice. nilovg Hi Howard, I lost your mail where you suggested to use the term development instead of practice. I meant to answer because I found that you formulated that very well. Practice is a term that is so loaded. One thinks of a self who is doing the practice. The Pali term pa.tipatti is hard to translate. In Thai it is explained as arriving at what is specific, and then elaborated: the specific characteristics of realities. True, understanding of the characteristics of realities that appear is to be developed. Development is fine, but then arises the question of right effort, and we have the term effort to cope with. We had so many discussions about this already. I was reading to Lodewijk from my 'Buddhism in Daily Life', Ch 15: < Samm-vyma of the eightfold Path arises together with samm- di.t.thi, right understanding and samm-sati, right mindfulness. The development of vipassan is not merely being mindful of realities, without investigating their characteristics. The characteristics of nma and rpa must be thoroughly investigated over and over again until they are understood as only a nma or only a rpa, non-self. Samm-vyma is an indispensable factor for the development of right understanding, because much courage and perseverance are needed for the investigation of realities in order see them as they are. Samm- vyma is the strength and vigour which arises each moment when there is awareness of a nma or a rpa and understanding of the reality which appears is being developed. Question: You said that when samm-di.t.thi investigates a characteristic of nma or rpa which is object of mindfulness there is also samm-vyma at that moment. But when there is very little awareness should we not make an effort to have more? Nina: One may try to force the arising of awareness and try to catch the reality of the present moment, but then one does not know what sati is. Someone may take his attachment to sati for sati. It is true that right awareness can be developed, but this does not mean that one can force its arising. The factor which can condition its arising is understanding how vipassan is to be developed. If we know what the object of sati is: the nma or rpa which appears now, through one of the six doors, sati can arise and thus right understanding can gradually develop. When a citta with right mindfulness arises, there is at that moment right effort as well. Effort in vipassan is the strength or energy which is needed to investigate the reality which appears in order to understand it as it is, but we should remember that this effort is not self. Right effort of the eightfold Path supports and strengthens right mindfulness and right understanding. Question: I have heard that the right effort of the eightfold Path is the effort of the middle way. However, it is very difficult to walk the middle way. If we make too much of an effort there is the notion of self again and if we make no effort at all we are lazy and heedless. I do not know how to walk the right way. Nina: If we think in terms of making too much or too little effort, then we do not realize that effort is nma and not self. We should not confuse samm-vyma of the eightfold Path with what we in conventional language usually mean by effort or trying. We do not have to think of making an effort, because when there is right mindfulness there is at that moment samm-vyma as well. Samm- vyma arises for example when there is right mindfulness of seeing, hearing, thinking, visible object or sound which appears now. At such a moment there is courage and strength to be mindful of the reality which appears in order to develop a clearer understanding of its characteristic. Question: When sati does not arise we cannot force its arising. Does this mean that nothing else can be done but waiting for the arising of sati? Nina: We should not waste our life and spend it in heedlessness. Thus, we should not neglect any way of kusala for which there is an opportunity. Dna, sla, samatha and vipassan are different ways of kusala we can apply ourselves to. When sati of vipassan does not arise, we should not be lazy with regard to the other ways of kusala, because at the moments we do not develop kusala, we act, speak and think with akusala cittas and thus we accumulate akusala time and again. We should not neglect the way of kusala which is studying and considering the teachings. If we study the teachings and often consider what the Buddha taught about nma and rpa there are conditions for the arising of sati at any moment. > -------- N: The way we use effort in conventional language is rather confusing. I find it helpful to think more of courage and strength. In Pali viira: a brave man, a hero. Viriya; the state of a strong man. ------ Nina. #110815 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Siila for laymen, was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. philofillet Hi Nina >> N: I am glad about that. Respect and politeness are forms of siila. > There is varita siila, abstaining from evil, and carita siila, doing > what is beneficial. The last includes respect, helping others. > I was reading to Lodewijk from my 'Buddhism in Daily Life", CH 14, > with quote from the sutta on Longknee, and thought immediately of > you who is so interested in siila for laymen. Good company is > stressed, and I know the importance you attach to this, realizing how > much it influences our way of life: Yes, I've appreciated DSG a lot the last couple of weeks. I find that discussing Dhamma really strengthens the factors that go against the gross defilments that I am prey to. I think if I were totally cut off from Dhamma discussion it would be very tragic! Ocassionally I will have my outbursts when I write something sensationalistic and insulting towards Acharn Sujin and by implication you, I know that it will happen again, there's no way to stop that except by not participating at DSG. But we both understand that that is just an expression of defilments having their way, with gradually weaking power as understanding gradually develops. Mettta, Phil #110816 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:06 am Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) philofillet Hi Ari Following up on what I wrote this morning... > Ph: I'll write more later, and perhaps ask others to join, because it's always interested me something Sarah said in a recorded talk, but not cutting off "of",but cutting off "at", and not a forceful cutting off, but just dropping the process of proliferation that starts arising from pleasant or unpleasant feelings. Ph: I was hoping to find the passage I read that talked about this cutting off at feeling, I think it was in a book called "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Nyanaponika (?) but here is Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his introduction to the section of the Samyutta Nikaya on vedana (feeling): "Feeling is a key link in the chain of dependent origination, the immediate precursor of craving, and thus to break the chain requires that our defiled responses to feeling be overcome....the Buddha's system of mental training aims at controlling our reactions to these feelings at the very point where they arise, without allowing the to proliferate and call their corresponding tendencies into play." Have you ever studied the Honeyball sutta? It's a wonderful teaching on how the mind proliferates in response to pleasant, unplesant and neutral feelings... Here is the key passage: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. "Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises... "Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises... "Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises... "Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises... "Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect. ******* I personally am not an insight-seeking meditator, I am a tranquility-seeking meditator, so although I have talked about the idea of "cutting off at feeling" it is not something I am familiar with practicing, but insight meditators here could tell you more. If there is anyone who feels that "cutting off at feeling" is a helpful concept to explore, please take over at this point. Sarah, I remember when I listened to A.S talks this topic came up, and you and others dismissed the idea of "cutting off at feeling" because every citta has a feeling element. But when the above kind of process is examined, can't you see how, if conditioned by understanding of course, a cutting off of the proliferation process at feeling could occur? Forget about whether one is trying to do it or not, just whether the notion that a "cutting off at feeling" that arose through understanding could have meaning, even though all cittas are accompanied by feeling. It is a kind of paradoxical thing that I can't wrap my head around. Metta, Phil p.s I will step out of this thread now and read and learn, if a discussion ensues. #110817 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] practice. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/18/2010 2:49:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I lost your mail where you suggested to use the term development instead of practice. ------------------------------------------------- It was on the 16th in a post on the thread "should one try one's best?", and I wrote the following to Jon (and Robert): ---------------------------------------------------------- I meant to answer because I found that you formulated that very well. ----------------------------------------------- Thanks. :-) The term 'development', while allowing for instances of volition as conditions, has the distinct advantage of being impersonal and not suggesting an agent/actor/self. ---------------------------------------------- Practice is a term that is so loaded. One thinks of a self who is doing the practice. ------------------------------------------- Yes. That is exactly right. ------------------------------------------- The Pali term pa.tipatti is hard to translate. In Thai it is explained as arriving at what is specific, and then elaborated: the specific characteristics of realities. True, understanding of the characteristics of realities that appear is to be developed. Development is fine, but then arises the question of right effort, and we have the term effort to cope with. We had so many discussions about this already. I was reading to Lodewijk from my 'Buddhism in Daily Life', Ch 15: < Sammå-våyåma of the eightfold Path arises together with sammå- di.t.thi, right understanding and sammå-sati, right mindfulness. The development of vipassanå is not merely being mindful of realities, without investigating their characteristics. The characteristics of nåma and rúpa must be thoroughly investigated over and over again until they are understood as only a nåma or only a rúpa, non-self. Sammå-våyåma is an indispensable factor for the development of right understanding, because much courage and perseverance are needed for the investigation of realities in order see them as they are. Sammå- våyåma is the strength and vigour which arises each moment when there is awareness of a nåma or a rúpa and understanding of the reality which appears is being developed. Question: You said that when sammå-di.t.thi investigates a characteristic of nåma or rúpa which is object of mindfulness there is also sammå-våyåma at that moment. But when there is very little awareness should we not make an effort to have more? Nina: One may try to force the arising of awareness and try to “catch” the reality of the present moment, but then one does not know what sati is. Someone may take his attachment to sati for sati. It is true that right awareness can be developed, but this does not mean that one can force its arising. The factor which can condition its arising is understanding how vipassanå is to be developed. If we know what the object of sati is: the nåma or rúpa which appears now, through one of the six doors, sati can arise and thus right understanding can gradually develop. When a citta with right mindfulness arises, there is at that moment right effort as well. Effort in vipassanå is the strength or energy which is needed to investigate the reality which appears in order to understand it as it is, but we should remember that this effort is not self. Right effort of the eightfold Path supports and strengthens right mindfulness and right understanding. Question: I have heard that the right effort of the eightfold Path is the effort of the “middle way”. However, it is very difficult to walk the middle way. If we make too much of an effort there is the notion of self again and if we make no effort at all we are lazy and heedless. I do not know how to walk the right way. Nina: If we think in terms of making too much or too little effort, then we do not realize that effort is nåma and not self. We should not confuse sammå-våyåma of the eightfold Path with what we in conventional language usually mean by “effort” or “trying”. We do not have to think of making an effort, because when there is right mindfulness there is at that moment sammå-våyåma as well. Sammå- våyåma arises for example when there is right mindfulness of seeing, hearing, thinking, visible object or sound which appears now. At such a moment there is courage and strength to be mindful of the reality which appears in order to develop a clearer understanding of its characteristic. Question: When sati does not arise we cannot force its arising. Does this mean that nothing else can be done but waiting for the arising of sati? Nina: We should not waste our life and spend it in heedlessness. Thus, we should not neglect any way of kusala for which there is an opportunity. Dåna, síla, samatha and vipassanå are different ways of kusala we can apply ourselves to. When sati of vipassanå does not arise, we should not be lazy with regard to the other ways of kusala, because at the moments we do not develop kusala, we act, speak and think with akusala cittas and thus we accumulate akusala time and again. We should not neglect the way of kusala which is studying and considering the teachings. If we study the teachings and often consider what the Buddha taught about nåma and rúpa there are conditions for the arising of sati at any moment. > -------- N: The way we use effort in conventional language is rather confusing. ------------------------------------------------ Particularly, I think, this is so because in our thinking we smear together volition/intention and active attention and active energy with the glue of sense-of-self, and we produce the notion of an actor who is exerting effort. For us, this is largely unavoidable, but it is important to be aware of this happening. ------------------------------------------------ I find it helpful to think more of courage and strength. In Pali viira: a brave man, a hero. Viriya; the state of a strong man. ------ Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110818 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:57 am Subject: Re: The Shunyata of Shunyata, correct? epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > What about what the suttas actually say? Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? > > > colette: That's a trick question? Isn't it? "What about what the suttas actually say?" Are the suttas speaking of the emptiness of things or are the suttas speaking of the delusions that the mind makes out of the hallucinations gained through the alaya-vijnana? The delusions that have been produced and continue as tendencies within the "storehouse consciousness" that you are referring to are the same ones that keep one from understanding anatta. So they are two sides of the same coin. If one had total right understanding, delusion would vanish, but the question is whether you can develop complete right understanding through pariyatti. Will it ever convert, or is more direct experiential practice necessary to make the understanding actual? I think it is the latter. > The rest of your reply, although I have no problems with it, seems like fluff, icing on the cake. What is "intention"? What is "effort"? What is "action"? You got it baby! The suttas DO NOT CALL FOR ATTAINING SUCH HEIGHTS SPECIFICALLY THROUGH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING ONLY! I don't understand why these are fluff. What do you propose in their place? > Good to hear from you Robert. It is a joy to know that my VIPSISSANA and/or INSIGHT has been telling me the truth and guiding me very well through the hazardous BARDOS. It is almost an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE to think and to "practice" in life as I watch the manifestation of a mind-only THOUGHT. If you are experiencing the Bardos you are indeed "out of body" as they are non-corporeal states. If you are experiencing them as you are walking around "in life" you are in a very interesting state of consciousness. If you are manifesting things directly from thought that is very interesting indeed. Be well! Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #110819 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Herman, and Ari. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > When a person is not well, a good doctor is as useful as a good dhamma > teacher :-) The Buddha will give you the best cognitive therapy in the > world, but if the chemistry of your body is out of kilter, I wouldn't > recommend that you try and think your way out of depression. But by all > means, share the Buddha's insights with your doctor. S/he needs them as much > as anyone else. I agree with Herman that it is a good idea to check out the chemical aspect of depression to see if medication will be helpful. I would note that there are some depressions that are very amenable to medical treatment, and in that case it may be very worthwhile. Other forms of depression do not respond easily to medication and require either experimentation with different combinations of drugs, or other methods to work with them. All depression has a better outcome when combined with psychotherapy and not just chemically treated, and mindfulness-based therapy that has developed recently has been found quite effective in a number of cases. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #110820 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:24 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > KH: >> Right understanding of nama and rupa conditions the co-arising of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration etc. These are the only actions that the suttas call for. > >> > > RE: > What about what the suttas actually say? > --------- > > That *is* what the suttas actually say. > > ----------------- How about a quote to that effect? I don't believe that Buddha ever said: "Development of right understanding through studying Dhamma will by itself lead to the natural arising of Right Effort, Intention and Action without doing anything else. It is the only action required. It is not necessary to follow the Noble Eightfold path, but only the Onefold path of Dhamma study - Right Understanding in the form of pariyatti - intellectual understanding - from reading and discussing Dhamma - and all the rest will happen by itself. That's why it's called the 'Noble Onefold Path.'" > RE: > Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. > ----------------- > > The suttas, and the Tipitaka as a whole, teach the eightfold path, which is a citta with eight supramundane cetasikas. There is no doubt about it, ask any serious student of the Dhamma. That's nonsense, there are very serious students of the Dhamma all over the world who believe the Noble Eightfold Path is a path to be followed in life in order to create the conditions for awakening, not "supramundane cetasikas" that arise in a flash after drinking tea and studying Dhamma for a few thousand lifetimes. Hardly *anyone* believes that outside of your "very special school" which you have proudly proclaimed in the past is a tiny minority of Buddhists. Around the world, serious students of Abhidhamma and the commentaries, from Thailand to Burma and back again, practice an Abhidhamma-based version of Insight Meditation based on Abdhidhamma and Vism, which is what you do if you take the texts literally and don't bend them into a mental pretzel. The Buddhist approach of "read and study only" and 'make sure not to do anything else or you will promote Self-View' is very small indeed! > ------------------ > RE: > The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, > ------------------ > > Intention is not one of the eight path factors. Excuse me....? (1. Right view/Right understanding [sammā-diṭṭhi] ) 2. Right intention/Right resolve [sammā sankappa] What do you call it? (3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood 6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration) > But the important point is, the entire world must be understood as just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. The only "actions" that satipatthana calls for are momentary functions performed by the eight path factors. If you insist on interpreting the suttas otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice. Again, I'm not talking at the moment about *interpreting* the suttas at all; I'm talking about *what they actually say.* If you don't pay attention to the Buddha's actual words before you go off and interpret them as you please, you are doing the Buddha, yourself, and everyone else a disservice. > ------------------------- > RE: > and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? > -------------------------- > > Yes, they do. Emphatically! Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110821 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:40 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > RobE: I think a lot of the confusion in this issue is the idea that kusala is some kind of mystical quality that no one can easily know and that it can easily be mistaken for its opposite... > > pt: Thanks for your thoughts. You may well be right, though I was kind of hoping for a practical description of how exactly does the kusala experience of the breath as object differs from the akusala one. Nina: ...However, it appears as the tiniest ruupa > of hardness, softness, etc. at the nose tip or upperlip. It is so > slight, a mere nothing so to say. And it becomes more and more > subtle as one progresses. ... > pt: Thanks very much for this explanation. I guess this is the sort of explanation that Jon was after (right Jon?). For me though, I can't quite understand how this sort of contemplation happens in samatha bhavana with breath as object. I mean, it seems more like an intellectual contemplation of sorts... This subject interests me a lot, and while I think about anapanasati in a different language and set of principles than some others here, it may be worth giving you another simple answer from my perspective and see if there is anything in it. My take on what makes breath a good object of meditation is in a sense similar to what Nina said above about the "rupa of hardness." The way in which the breath is a concrete experience that leads to increased mindfulness and understanding of dhammas is through sensation. I don't see it as a concept at all, but by a continuing series of sensory moments. The breath is not taken abstractly in meditation, or as a "whole," but as moments of sensation, as the breath goes in and out of the body. There are a number of levels of experience of the breath for training concentration and samatha that are kind of conceptual - counting breath to just keep basic track of the passage of the breaths without distraction, then noting the in-breath and the out-breath sensations and distinguishing between when the breath is going in and out - a bit more concentration required; then following long and soft, smooth and rough breaths - a bit more concentrated and also leading towards samatha as long, smooth, subtle and continuous breathing leads more towards samatha than short and tense breaths. Then there is mindfulness meditation which is less legislated and more a question of being aware of whatever arises in the moment, and as regards the breath, this is a question of being aware of the breathing sensation on a more and more subtle level as sati becomes more refined. One may first feel general sensation, then eventually become aware of the subtle sensations that attend the micro-changes of the in-breath and the out-breath. In any case, it is rupa all the way in both kinds of meditation, either on a more gross or subtle level, and while concept may come in, the aim is always to be aware of physical sensation. Other factors may come in at later stages of the practice, but this is the basic practice and the foundation for anything more "mental," such as contemplating anatta, etc. Because the breath is always moving and changing and creating new and more sensations to arise, it is a natural object for understanding anicca and other characteristics. As for it being kusala or akusala, my answer is probably not satisfying, but to me it is very basic. One knows pretty quickly if there is tension, doubt, restlessness, etc., other hindrances arising, because when sitting and following breath, anything like this that comes up is highlighted. These akusala arisings can be noted as such, and at other times, kusala comes in the form of ease, concentration, awareness of sensations or characteristics, etc. If one becomes attached to pleasant feeling, after a while this will lead to either restlessness or feelings of clinging. As awareness becomes more subtle, these sorts of things become apparent too, so I think that there is an increasing capacity to tell kusala from akusala and even more subtle forms of akusala as one progresses. Nothing's perfect, but I do think it is a viable path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110822 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Herman. Some most excellent points, quite out of frame from what we normally think about. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > ...But experience is otherwise. Whatever is experienced, I am not it. That "not > being" is the ongoing dynamic. If I was ever something, then I could stop > craving for being. But I am never anything, and that is what is being > experienced. This is not theory, this is what is happening. > ...To be conscious of red, straightforwardly > described, is to know red, and know at once that the knowing of red and the > being of red do not coincide. There is the experience of a distance, so to > speak, between red and knowing it. I am not red. What you and Abhidhamma > commentary are doing is to invent a distinct reality, a distinct being, to > account for this experience of separation or distance. You call that > experience nama. What I am saying is that the experience of nama is not an > experience of a positive something, I am saying it is a negative, it is > not-being the object. > > Nothing is itself, Ken, nothing, least of all consciousness. That > is emptiness for you. ... > Sunnata and anatta are, IMO, relationships between things, not things in > themselves. One cannot see that a glass is empty, one has to think it. The > glass in itself is only what it is, it's emptiness consists of the > difference between what is thought, and what is. Globally, that translates > into sunnata being the difference between what is sensed, and what is > thought. This is all very well put. And very pretty too. I will try to extrapolate from and summarize and probably subvert what you are saying at the same time: It seems that the realization of anatta and the realization of sunnata are both in relation to the expectations that our minds are born into - to want to be someone and to acquire satisfying experiences for that someone. The experience of anatta is that this someone is absent, so when we have experiences there is no one home to enjoy them. Not recognizing this leads to more craving, and thus a craving that cannot be fulfilled. When we realize there is no one home to receive the gift, that is when anatta is realized and craving stops. When we realize that the object we are experiencing is just an experience and not really that object, that it doesn't have the value we perceive in it and that it has no relation to us which we would like it to have, that is realization of sunnata - it is empty of any value that we would like to acquire. Not realizing this leads to continued clinging and craving, wanting to acquire and hold onto pleasant objects to satisfy ourselves. Realizing that the object is not what we think it is and never will be, leads to letting go. So perhaps anatta is the subjective pole of emptiness, and sunnata is the objective pole. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110823 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Siila for laymen, was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 18-okt-2010, om 10:47 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ocassionally I will have my outbursts when I write something > sensationalistic and insulting towards Acharn Sujin and by > implication you, I know that it will happen again, there's no way > to stop that except by not participating at DSG. But we both > understand that that is just an expression of defilments having > their way, with gradually weaking power as understanding gradually > develops. ------ N: Conditions, and do not worry about insulting. The latent tendencies that lie dormant can condition the arising of akusala citta whenever there is an opportunity. Very unpredictable as we know. Nina. #110824 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 16-okt-2010, om 8:24 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > "...He remains established in the observation of the process of > > coming-to-be in the body or the process of dissolution in the body > > or both the process of coming-to-be and the process of dissolution. > > Or he is mindful of the fact, 'There is a body here' until > > understanding and full awareness come about." > > > > In other words, one is observing the characteristic of anicca in > > the body, which means that processes are being observed in some > > detail. But it adds that the practitioner may just be mindful of > > the idea that the body is present, and that is a kind of gross sati > > of the conceptual understanding "this is a body" until such time as > > understanding and awareness become capable of seeing the processes > > of coming-to-be and dissolution that compose the body in reality > > > > That is Thich Nat Hanh's translation, and I thought that was pretty > > neat. > -------- > N: I do not think the sutta deals with gross sati of conceptual > understanding. This may become clearer when reading the commentary. > The commentary explains further (See the Way of Mindfulness, Ven. > Soma) > (worth while to consult this): > Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He > thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no > woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I," nothing > that is mine, no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca > attli, na satto, na puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na > attaniyam naham, na mama, na koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati > paccupatthita hoti]. > > Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. > > This is said: The mindfulness established is not for another purpose. > What is the purpose for which it is established? > > Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." > That is just for the sake of a wider and wider, or further and > further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam > uttaruttari anapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the > increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. > > For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to > the highest extent [kayanupassana anam param pamanam papanatthaya] > is the meaning of: To the extent necessary for just knowledge > [yavadeva anamattaya]. > > Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives > emancipated from dependence on craving and wrong views.> I don't see the quotes and the idea of increasing refinement of mindfulness of the body as being in contradiction, but I do think the commentary is great and gives good guidance for looking at the sutta! I love these commentaries, they're very enjoyable. I don't think the point of the practice is to be aware of the "gross conceptual level" either, but I do think there is a progression from being mindful of the presence of the body in a general way, and then becoming increasingly aware of the specific dhammas that this breaks down into. Do you think that is wrong, put that way? In any case, I will look at the commentary and get a more clear idea of what is at play. Maybe I will be able to talk about it a little more precisely with further study. Thanks, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #110825 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:11 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > azita: a friend gave me a book by Ven Thanissaro but I could not read it as it jst didnt make much dhamma sense to me - but that particular friend reads many of the Ven. books - so there you go! I have enjoyed Thanissaro in the past, but now when I want a precise translation his words sometime seem a little bit vague or flowery. But still glad he's there! > > If you took your translation, and put "fixated" in instead of "stuck," that would not be bad, though "stuck" is probably to the point. > > azita: both words seem to be saying the same thing. Fixated on something, stuck on something, same to me. Yes, they are both good. I'm just being finicky and fooling around with alternate words. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110826 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:26 am Subject: Re: Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Ari. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "a_true_lotus" wrote: > > [Robert E] > > > Thanks for sharing your personal struggle with negative thinking, and the path you are exploring to work with it. > > *No, thank you for not minding that I kind of post in a "every day" Buddhism manner. I think it's very valuable to do that, and sometimes a relief from all the theoretical stuff - which can also create a kind of "cloud." :-) ... > In the Buddhist cosmology, right after making "contact" with an experiential object, positive or negative [or neutral] vedana [feeling-reaction] comes up immediately. What usually happens after that is that the mind runs with the positive or negative reaction and creates clinging or aversion and more complex thoughts and emotions that eventually cause more disappointment and pain. > > *I see. > > If we become aware of those "positive" and "negative" initial reactions, we may be able to detach from them before they get more complicated and cause more suffering. Anyway, just a thought, and thanks again for sharing your story. > > *Yes, they are very complicated, aren't they? Some forms of thinking, I find, feel as if they are almost objects that you can reach out and touch, maybe like a cloud. They are made of so many thoughts, that it's really hard to understand all the thoughts in the cloud or maybe the complicated way we think about things - or at least the way I think about things. It took me a long time, but I decided over time that it is not worth getting involved with all those thoughts that are so complicated. I think maybe those complicated thoughts - especially about life and feelings - may be a reflection of the emotional state one is in, and don't necessarily contain useful information. They are sometimes called "racing thoughts," and the thing to do with them is probably to put them aside. I used to have much more convoluted thought processes, and now I try to slow things down and establish a thought or two that is more practical so I don't run around in circles. > *One thing that drives me totally crazy is that it seems meditation just does not work as well as pills for me. I don't know if this means that I am not doing my meditation correctly. My doctor prescribed an anti-depressant and I am no longer depressed. All my meditation could not do that and it's discouraging. I wouldn't be discouraged by that at all. If a pill removes the depression, that is a really good sign that the depression comes from a chemical imbalance. Those are often genetic, and in any case it means that it is a medical problem. I would treat it then like any medical problem and just "take the medicine." It doesn't mean you are cheating, anymore than it is a cheat to take an antibiotic for an infection. It's just the right thing to do. Even Buddha would say that while a monk shouldn't drink alcohol, that it was okay to have the amount of alcohol that was necessary to take a medical tincture to cure an illness. Buddhism is very practical in that way and it's okay to do what is "good and necessary" to take care of yourself. That shouldn't discourage you from enjoying your meditation either. You can investigate mindfulness and establish more peaceful states with or without medication. The medication is just helping establish a more peaceful foundation. The purpose of meditation is to develop mindfulness/awareness and peacefulness/equanimity. It should work in partnership with your medication with no problem. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110827 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:38 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > When you say "convoluted stories about the construction of reality" are you referring to the Abhidhamma? You wouldn't be the first Buddhist meditator to refer to it that way, and you won't be the last. All Buddhist meditators find themselves in the invidious position of having to disparage the very Dhamma they profess to be learning. What I mostly mean are the stories about what the Abhidhamma means. Abhidhamma is very valuable, but I don't think that the general statements that are extrapolated from it are always correct. Many adherents to Abhidhamma have interpreted it and acted upon it differently than you do, and in a more active, and I think, more effective way, by following all the steps of the path rather than just one. I think that learning the specifics of Abhidhamma re very valuable; and the goal that Nina often states lately of using that knowledge to lead to detachment is also very valuable; but I think that creating a conceptual world view and then attaching to it as right view, is not valuable and is misusing that information and knowledge. > ------------------ > RE: > Perhaps it is simply looking more closely and carefully and seeing what is really happening that is necessary to wake up, > ------------------ > > You can look for a hundred years, time and again, lifetime after lifetime, but you will never know the Dhamma that way. The only way is to hear it from someone else. Having heard it, and continuing to discuss and study it, I am happy to have my Dhamma friends on the path. I agree that is most valuable. However, I would counter by saying that the kind of intellectual-only knowledge that you are intent on cultivating will never convert into true panna or vipassana by itself, without practice. And that is the missing link which your philosophy will not allow you to engage. I think it is extremely rare for someone to awaken from only thinking and considering the Dhamma. Buddha did not advocate an intellectual-only path, and it doesn't work. > ----------------------- > RE: > rather than making up an even more complex explanation. > ----------------------- > > The complex explanation you are referring to is "the way things are." The Buddha never said it would be easy for people like us, but he taught it anyway. He taught it in the knowledge that it could sink in to some degree - some gradual progress would be possible. > > There is a way out of this coma! :-) Yes, and it is not by thinking about the coma in more detail while being content to stay in it. One has to take exercise to open the eyes and get off the bed. The knowledge that you have and have been cultivating is very valuable if you use it to practice, both in everyday life and in your formal meditation sessions. :-) ["When standing, sitting, lying down...etc."] If you just read, think, talk and consider, you will be hanging out reading, thinking and talking for a very long time. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110829 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:53 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Phil, and Ari. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: I do this too. I think it's wise. The mind is so accustomed to feeding on sense objects, if it learns to feed on pleasant sensations during meditation, it is healthier food. People who disagree with this have good Pali Canon (the Buddha's teaching) text-based reasons for doing so, but my main interest is in being happy and not doing harmful things, and the deeper, technically correct teachings that they point out don't deter me from those goals. Buddha keeps saying throughout the sutta pitaka that the jhanas are a "pleasant abiding in the here and now." Buddha describes how, once achieved, the jhanas can be used as a most effective springboard for practicing vipassana leading to enlightenment. I think that Buddha considered samatha and the development of the bliss states in which defilements are suppressed to be an important tool on the path. Sure, you have to look out for attachment that will keep you from getting stuck in the deep peace/bliss states, but that doesn't mean you should not develop these states. I think the reason Buddha called the jhanas a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" is because deep peace is so difficult to experience in samsara. We may be on the path for a very long time, and it's not bad to have a place to go to "take a vacation" from the craziness of samsara. I have experienced even a mild amount of peacefulness in meditation as a real gift, and it makes it easier to "go back to work" in samsara afterwards. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #110830 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > KH: >> A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. > >> > > RE: > That is not directing and controlling dhammas. It is simply taking a look at what is there, which is what you advocate anyway, just in a different setting. > ----- > > "Taking a look" - call it what you like, it is still something you think you can *do*. You can say it in whatever language you like - it is something that *can and does take place* in meditation, even though there is no doer. Meditation can be done with right understanding, as Buddha and his disciples all proved back in the old days. You have no principled reason why one can't engage in meditation *with right view* but you insist it is the case anyway. Just your own prejudice against a discipline that didn't happen to be your path in the final analysis, but is correct for others. In any case whether you call it *doing* or *happening* it is not "trying to exercise control over dhammas" so your statement was inaccurate, plain and simple. > ------------------------ > KH: >> So he is confusing the real world (of no control) with the conceptual one (of control). > >> > > RE: > Seeing and discerning arising dhammas is not exercising control. > ------------------------- > > I don't even know what it would mean to "see and discern arising dhammas." That's the sort of thing meditation teachers tell you to do. I say it is just double talk (psychobabble). Pali sounds like double-talk too if you don't translate it. You're not trying very hard, because "seeing and discerning" is exactly what you talk about in seeing what dhammas are that are arising now. It's only slightly different language, but you don't like the setup, so to your dogmatic mind it is "psychobabble," or whatever other insult you feel like hurling at it. It's an unintelligent response. > ----------------- > RE: > You just have a proprietary view of your chosen method of understanding. > ----------------- > > Is there a method? I think you will find the only method the Buddha taught was satipatthana - right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa. That is what I said in other words - you are now objecting to what I said by paraphrasing it - your "chosen method of understanding" is what I said, and you said: "The only method the Buddha taught was...right understanding...of nama or rupa." So I accurately described "your chosen method of understanding." It is not the *only* way of approaching the path. It is the one *you* think is correct. Good for you! > That is not something you can do by trying (striving). Well how do you do it Ken? Do you actually have it happen by not doing anything at all? Hardly. You study Abhidhamma-related teachings; you learn from your wise friends and you presumably thus keep accumulating conditions for panna. So that...is...your...method of following the path. You may be nothing but arising cittas, Ken, but whatever you are - that is the philosophy you are following. > ------------------------- > KH: >> Pantomime vipassana might be fun, but it is the opposite of what the Buddha taught. > >> > > Re: > Your view of this is the opposite of what the Buddha actually said, notwithstanding your negative characterization of meditation. How about "pantomime right understanding" on your part? Just as likely. > ------------------------- > > Yes, that is how Phil pictures me: riding around the outside of a meditation hall on a bicycle, disturbing the occupants with shouts of "There is only nama and rupa!" :-) Well it's funny enough I guess, but calling other ways of following the path "pantomime" doesn't show any understanding or communicate anything of the Dhamma, does it? It is merely indulging yourself in throwing more insults around. Should I congratulate you for speaking this way? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110831 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Siila for laymen, was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina and all, On 19 October 2010 01:04, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Dear Phil, > Op 18-okt-2010, om 10:47 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > N: Conditions, and do not worry about insulting. The latent > tendencies that lie dormant can condition the arising of akusala > citta whenever there is an opportunity. Very unpredictable as we know. > > Being worried about insulting is, of course. one of the conditions that may prevent a person from speaking harshly. If your advice to Phil is to have no concern for the well-being of others, then you should reconsider that. Cheers Herman #110832 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ------ > RE: >>> Can you describe the characteristic of sunnata? > >>> > > KH: >> I think it is described as the void. There can never be a self because every dhamma contains the void. > >> > > RE: > How does a dhamma "contain" the void? What does that mean? Is it void through and through? Is some aspect of it void? The way you put it sounds like a metaphor. > -------------- > > Yes, well, you asked if I could describe sunnata. So I had a go - for what it was worth! :-) > > As far as I know, the direct experience of anatta is like staring into a void or an abyss. One sees how, where the might have been atta, there is actually nothing. That is a good description of what it might be like to experience anatta. So would the experience of sunnata be like seeing a void in the object where you might have expected some other quality or characteristic, such as its desirability, controllability or satisfactoriness? > --------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> all dhammas have the characteristic of > anatta. There cannot be a dhamma without anatta, and there cannot be anatta without a dhamma; they are inseparable." > >> > > RE: > That is fine, but is general. How does the dhamma contain or express or display anatta or sunnata? How is it known when it is discerned? > -------------------- > > Dhammas have characteristic in the same way as conventional elements have. Conventional elements have characteristics of mass and solidity (or liquidity or gaseousness) and so forth. Dhammas are the same in that respect. Well I think there is a problem with attributing "emptiness" to a dhamma as a positive characteristic. I have had this discussion here in some detail in the past, so won't go into it fully. But I think this is a good example of taking something the Buddha taught and turning it into an objective structure, as if it is an "is" rather than an "is not." Anatta means "no self," not "the presence of a no-self." To turn no-self or emptiness into a positive structure that is "part of" a dhamma is awfully close to the excesses of some Mahayana schools that have turned these absences of self or meaning into positive mystical attributes. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #110833 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Siila for laymen, was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > We read that there are four channels for the flowing away of amassed > wealth: "...debauchery in drinking, knavery in > dice-play..." Well...I see I am going to have to change my lifestyle... ;-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #110834 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] typo: should be "devoted" not "devoit" egberdina Hi Alex, On 17 October 2010 09:10, truth_aerator wrote: > > > > If nothing can be done and nothing should be done, then I guess some > >Xtians, atheists, Muslims, hindus are as much on the path as devoit >DSG > Abhidhammikas. Somehow I don't buy this. > > should be: > If nothing can be done and nothing should be done, then I guess some > Xtians, atheists, Muslims, hindus are as much on the path as devoted (or > serious or learned) DSG Abhidhammikas. Somehow I don't buy this. > > I'd love that to be the case of "do nothing and wait when awakening will > fall in your lap". > > I think the idea of awakening or enlightenment originates from Hinduism. No doubt, Buddhism has modified that idea, and I like the Zen appreciation of it most: *before enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water after enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water...* I wouldn't be expecting any fireworks, just an acceptance of the way things are. Cheers Herman #110835 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina Hi Alex, On 17 October 2010 11:33, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hello Herman, Howard, KenH, all, > > > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." > > There are two extreme ontological views. > 1) View that all is due to matter > 2) View that all is due to mind. > > There are also two extreme theories of knowledge > a) True knowledge of the world is possible. > b) True knowledge of the world is impossible, extreme Skepticism. > > A consummate materialist can say that all acts through body, speech and > mind, that all consciousness, willing, learning and knowing is due to > material processes that develop in such and such a way. Any objection to > this can be countered with "this is all a material process". > > A consummate idealist can say that all acts through body, speech and mind, > that all matter, consciousness, willing, learning and knowing is due to only > mental processes that develop in such and such a way. Any objection to this > can be countered with "this is all a mental process". And both kinds of > philosophers can write big books, big > arguments, > > So it seems to be a dead end. Each can remain holding one's own position. > > Also if one adopts extreme Skepticism of Knowledge if one is wrong, then > one is at a disadvantage if there is true knowledge. If one believes and > studies to gain more understanding, and understanding is possible, then one > is at advantage. > > What practical use is it to question "are there really cars on that > highway, or is it all an illusion? Is there more chance of being run over by > a car when you jump in front of it or when lying in one's own bed?" These > sort of questions can be asked by an extreme Sceptic. > And you know, how does the above change the way one behaves in the real > world? If all external world is an illusion, does it make sense to jump > under the moving car? What does experience of others and common sense tell > us? Or does it make sense to carefully avoid being run over by cars and > trains? If one is hungry or thirsty, regardless of underlying reality, > should one eat/drink water or die from lack of food or water? > > Alcoholic doesn't drink because he thinks that alcohol has an inherent > existence, he drinks because he doesn't see any other possible way to stop > thinking about some events that he interprets as causing him to emotionally > suffer. He also thinks that benefits of taking alcohol now outweighs its > drawbacks. > > IMHO, the ontological dilemma can be side-stepped by pragmatism. What > practical use is of holding this vs that extreme view that depends on belief > in certain axioms that cannot be proven or disproven? Whatever there is or > isn't behind learning a skill, developing wholesome or unwholesome states of > mind, developing peace or discontent, uprooting or not uprooting the fetters > - what actions lead to what result? Experience (whatever is or isn't > underlying it) does show us that learning occurs and changes one for the > better or worse. > > You make very good points, and I agree with them. > Maybe same is with Dhamma? One practices and develops wholesome skills of > mind that help one be at peace regardless of what happens? Nothing to say > about blissing out in deep states of concentration. > > I agree, Buddhism is practical. The barometer is whether there is suffering or not, not if we have "right theory". > Some may say "what about taking strong tranquillizers, narcotics, LSD, etc" > rather than developing the path? > > Well those things are crutches. Their "High" lasts only when the supplies > and money lasts. They are illegal, expensive and bad to health and > psychiatric issues. Nothing to mention about dangerous addiction, withdrawal > effects, having to increase the dose for the same effect, etc. > > IMHO. > > At Manly, there was a discussion about whether or not a developing insight / understanding of reality modifies behaviour. I hope I am not misrepresenting anyone, but I think Jon was a definite no, pt a maybe, and I a definite yes. I guess, whether we actually believe what we say we understand only becomes apparent when unwanted events come our way, not when everything goes according to plan. Cheers Herman > With metta, > > Alex > > > #110836 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina That last email should have started with Hi Alex, Jon, pt, Ken, and all :-) On 19 October 2010 09:42, Herman wrote: > Hi Alex, > > #110837 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:47 pm Subject: awakening truth_aerator Hello Herman, all, > I think the idea of awakening or enlightenment originates from >Hinduism. No doubt, Buddhism has modified that idea, and I like the >Zen appreciation of it most: > > *before enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water > after enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water...* > > I wouldn't be expecting any fireworks, just an acceptance of the >way >things are. Are you saying that Buddhist Awakening (I prefer to use Arhatship) is nothing more than passive submission to the way things seem to be? I believe that it IS a major event where through wisdom all fetters are uprooted, and that is spectacular inner event. With metta, Alex #110838 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------- KH: >> Explanations of how things work help us to understand what those things are. <. . .> H: > I hazard a thought here that it is this kind of understanding that is based on, and leads to more self-view. ------- Sour grapes? :-) ---------- H: > Nama is not something that exists in itself. ---------- That is the kind of language that really gets my hackles up. It's Mahayana philosophy, isn't it? As far as I know it was designed by Nagarjuna to destroy the Abhidhamma, and to leave the way open for belief in self. ------------------ H: > If it did, then you could be nama, and if I had a dollar for every thought that consciousness is self then I would own a very large mansion just up the road from you :-). ------------------ There goes the neighbourhood! :-) To say that something "does not exist in itself" or "lacks own being" is just meaningless Nagarjuna double-talk. We all know there is some kind of existence. By equating existence with self, Nagarjuna was able to have his cake and eat it too. He could pay lip service to anatta and still have a secret belief in an indefinable self. ------------------------- H: > But experience is otherwise. Whatever is experienced, I am not it. ------------------------- It's OK to say you are not it, but you were saying *it* was not it. And that is not OK. ---------------------- H: > That "not being" is the ongoing dynamic. If I was ever something, then I could stop craving for being. But I am never anything, and that is what is being experienced. This is not theory, this is what is happening. -------------------------- Dhammas are being experienced. They exist, and they have the anatta characteristic. -------------------------------------- H: > Abhidhamma commentary explanations of "what is" are all positive, and they therefore do not, and cannot account for the reality of anatta, which is "not being". The positive must include the negative. -------------------------------------- The Theravada Dhamma does not say existence is self. It does not say having substance (characteristics) means having self. Those are just red herrings introduced by people who want Buddhism to be a secret form of eternity-belief. ------------------- <. . .> H: > It makes sense doesn't it, to be free from suffering, rather than to tell myself that the theory says I can't possible be suffering, so therefore I am not. ------------------- Neither of those things applies. *You* are not suffering, and you are not free from suffering. "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." (Vism) ---------------------- KH: >> The 'one object at a time' explanation is very persuasive if you think about it. Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither one thing not the other. Impossible! >> H: > Standing on Jon and Sarah's balcony, it would mean nothing to point to the water and proclaim "there is one ocean", or up in the air and proclaim "there is one sky". The ocean or sky are not a unit, they are not single. Rather, they are complex, and variegated. Like the breath. --------------------- You are avoiding the question. Can two objects (as distinct from one mixture of two objects) be experienced together? Let me save you the trouble: the only sensible, scientific answer is no. :-) ------------------------------- H: > So, I don't need to imagine what the experience of multiplicity is like, it is happening non-stop. The fact that attention singles stuff out is hardly relevant. The all is not limited by attention. And I am neither the all, nor attention. ------------------------------- You can be very annoying. :-) --------------------------------- H: > When namas appear at the mind door they are experienced by mentally cognizing consciousness, not by seeing consciousness, or hearing or touching (etc) consciousness. >> H: > The above is not something I can relate to, Ken. ---------------------------------- Of course you can! -------------------- KH: > > You can mentally cognize consciousness, can't you? >> H: > No, I can't, to be honest. To be conscious of red, straightforwardly described, is to know red, and know at once that the knowing of red and the being of red do not coincide. There is the experience of a distance, so to speak, between red and knowing it. I am not red. What you and Abhidhamma commentary are doing is to invent a distinct reality, a distinct being, to account for this experience of separation or distance. You call that experience nama. What I am saying is that the experience of nama is not an experience of a positive something, I am saying it is a negative, it is not-being the object. Nothing is itself, Ken, nothing, least of all consciousness. That is emptiness for you. --------------------- I will not say what it really is. :-) Nama (consciousness) experiences an object. We all know what that means; we all know what it is to be conscious of something. The only question is, why are you (and Nagarjuna) making such a big deal of this? Why do you question the reality of nama and rupa? The only obvious answer is: wrong view, belief in self. -------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Sunnata and anatta are, IMO, relationships between things, not things in themselves. One cannot see that a glass is empty, one has to think it. The glass in itself is only what it is, it's emptiness consists of the difference between what is thought, and what is. Globally, that translates into sunnata being the difference between what is sensed, and what is thought. I'm talking from my experience only, of course :-) --------------------------------- It's quite straightforward: anatta is a characteristic born by all absolute realities. Because of that, there can be no atta in the entire universe of absolute reality. You are looking at it from the wrong angle. You are suggesting there is something called atta. And then you are saying, because atta cannot be found in absolute reality, all dhammas are described as anatta. Even though you are getting HD's in your Philosophy course, this is a different course altogether. Just be glad it's not up to me to grade your DSG papers! :-) Ken H #110839 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 17 October 2010 09:42, Ken H wrote: > > I came across this recently, from the pen of the Nobel-winning Edelman: > > >"I have called another conscious illusion the Heraclitean illusion > because it reflects our way of thinking about time and > change. Most people sense the passage of time as the movement > of a point or a scene from the past to the present to the > future. But in a strict physical sense, only the present exists." > > -------- > > The "strict physical sense" or the "strict real sense" is the *only* real > sense, isn't it? So I wonder how Dr Edelman justifies moving on to any other > sense. > > That's a very useful question to ask. As he says, there is this illusion of time. He isn't so much interested in the problem of human suffering, more in explaining how that illusion of time is a product of the way our brains have evolved. He doesn't claim that understanding that there is only the present does anything to alter the fact that the brain will continue to generate the sense of time and change. So, the illusion is real in that it continues to occur. > ------------- > KH: > > If so, why doesn't science lead to nibbana? Why doesn't the > understanding "there are only subatomic particles - no self" lead to perfect > detachment and the end of suffering? > > > > > H: > Probably for the same reason that good dhamma doesn't lead to nibbana > either. It is not a self that craves, it is not a self that wonders on > through time. Rather, it is craving that leads to the idea of a self > wandering through time. > -------------- > > Yes, I agree with the second part. I don't know what you meant by the first > part, though. The Dhamma - the Ariyan Eightfold Path - is the way that leads > to nibbana. > > Well, Ken, you seem to be stepping outside of your own strict parameters here. What on earth could it mean, in the context of only the present being real, for there to be a way to somewhere else? > -------------------- > KH: > > One possible answer is that perfect understanding cannot be reached > until the mind is purified. And science doesn't know how to purify the mind. > > > > > H: > Another possible answer is that there is no such thing as perfect > > understanding or a purified mind, and that the quest for it is just another > manifestation of craving. > ----------------------- > > That would eliminate the third and fourth noble truths, wouldn't it? > > I'd be interested to know how the third and fourth noble truths figure in your understanding of only the present being real. > ---------------------- > H: > Edelman, who I quoted above, also says the following: > > > "So we must conclude that our belief that consciousness > causes things to happen is one of a number of useful illusions." > --------------------------------- > > Yes, useful for science. The Dhamma, however, stays with the undeniable > fact that there is only the present moment. That's why the Dhamma is so much > more responsible and dependable than science. It is a much more reliable > friend. > > ------------------------------- > KH: >> I don't know; I am only speculating. > >> > > H: > Me too, it can be fun :-) > -------------------------------- > > We should be ashamed of ourselves. Wasting our time on idle speculation > when we could be studying Dhamma. :-) > > Cheers Herman > Ken H > > > #110840 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment philofillet Hi Rob E (and Ari and all) Absolutely, what you go on to say below. I actually meant to come back and clarify, tranquility meditation is not to be dismissed, and in my oponion there is valuable tranquility meditation short of the jhanas as well, as in the example I gave on the train, and countless other examples. And the factors developed are considered to be "jhana factors" even short of the jhanas, I think. Now, our friends may be right when they say that if there is akusala involved we can't speak of this being kusala, technically speaking, and can't call them jhana factors, certainly. I don't know about all that. But certainly when Ari and I exchanged a post suggesting that there was something bad about "blissing out" that was wrong. BTW, from the way Ari described her meditation several weeks back, it sounds like she settles into a non-distracted, non-monkey mindish state quite easily, and doesn't suffer from the drowsiness I do. It's interesting that although she doesn't yet have the bookish knowledge of the Dhamma that many of us here do, she might have better acquired conditions for seeking jhanas, also she lives in an area that sounds conducive to it. It could be nice evidence that it is not bookish knowledge of the Dhamma that makes for that, she (so to speak) might have been good at jhanas in a past life, for example. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Phil, and Ari. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Ph: I do this too. I think it's wise. The mind is so accustomed to feeding on sense objects, if it learns to feed on pleasant sensations during meditation, it is healthier food. People who disagree with this have good Pali Canon (the Buddha's teaching) text-based reasons for doing so, but my main interest is in being happy and not doing harmful things, and the deeper, technically correct teachings that they point out don't deter me from those goals. > > Buddha keeps saying throughout the sutta pitaka that the jhanas are a "pleasant abiding in the here and now." Buddha describes how, once achieved, the jhanas can be used as a most effective springboard for practicing vipassana leading to enlightenment. I think that Buddha considered samatha and the development of the bliss states in which defilements are suppressed to be an important tool on the path. Sure, you have to look out for attachment that will keep you from getting stuck in the deep peace/bliss states, but that doesn't mean you should not develop these states. > > I think the reason Buddha called the jhanas a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" is because deep peace is so difficult to experience in samsara. We may be on the path for a very long time, and it's not bad to have a place to go to "take a vacation" from the craziness of samsara. I have experienced even a mild amount of peacefulness in meditation as a real gift, and it makes it easier to "go back to work" in samsara afterwards. > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = > #110841 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:20 pm Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom kenhowardau Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > > KH: >> I think it is because only panna - right understanding of > > nama and rupa - leads to enlightenment. > > >> > > > > A: > And what are the causes for it to be developed? What things are helpful for it? Will it develop all by itself, even if one doesn't do much (watch TV, party, have a good time with friends, etc). I would love it to be the case. > > --------- > > > >KH: Right understanding is even more lovely than that. > > No matter whether you are in a temple or in a house of ill repute, >right understanding *of the way things are in ultimate reality* is >sublime. > > You haven't answered the question and went sideways. ---------------------------- You could be right. But you did the same thing. We were talking about scientific facts and why they didn't lead to enlightenment. The answer I suggested was that only panna (and the 8fold path) led to enlightenment. Then you went sideways and asked how panna was developed. So I picked up on your comment "I would love it to be the case," and pointed out that the real case - the way things really are - was even more lovely than that. ----------------------- A: > Are there things to be avoided (such as parricide, matricide, creating schism in sangha, killing arahats, indulging in sensuality)? >Are there actions to be done, such as: studying and considering? ----------------------- No, there are no conventional actions to be done. The path is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa, whichever nama or rupa it happens to be. Ken H #110842 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 18 October 2010 10:45, Ken H wrote: > > > > > There is a way out of this coma! :-) > > That's right, it is conventionally called death :-) Buddhists know this as nibbana (without residue) Cheers Herman > Ken H > > > #110843 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:07 pm Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, > Hi Alex, > You could be right. But you did the same thing. We were talking >about scientific facts and why they didn't lead to enlightenment. >The answer I suggested was that only panna (and the 8fold path) led >to enlightenment. Then you went sideways and asked how panna was >developed. This is the thing, the scientists do not practice, unlike Buddhist meditators. Scientists often just study the theory and sometimes run experiments. Sure they may talk about how at quantum level there is this energy and no solid particles, but do they act on that knowledge? Do they behave in line with anatta and "ultimately no conceptual objects". > No, there are no conventional actions to be done. Are there conventional actions (such as killing parents, killing Arahants, wounding the Buddha, creating schism in sangha) to be avoided? >The path is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa, >whichever nama or rupa it happens to be. Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? How should one develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa at that time? Can that time be as good as any other occasion to develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa? That would be awesome if it were part of the path... With metta, Alex #110844 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ksheri3 Dear Nina, Yea, just the simple task of eradicating the illusionary concept of SELF from the mind is something that people fail to realize is one of the Buddha's most talked about aspects of the meditative practice. It certainly does take time, in most cases it probably takes thousands of lifetimes, as the Theravadans hold, to acquire such knowledge and certainty. But, as is common amongst the status quo, they fail to acknowledge the FUNDAMENTALS, the FOUNDATION of their structure, the actual Bija that is planted and the dirt the bija is planted in, etc. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Colette, > Op 18-okt-2010, om 1:40 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > > > I like that! It sounds good, doesn't it? > ------ > N: Yea, but it is a long way. First listening to the Dhamma, > discussion, and then gradually, gradually, there will be more > understanding. > Nina. > > > > > #110845 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:06 pm Subject: Re: The Shunyata of Shunyata, correct? ksheri3 Hi Robert E., Only five minutes left here. I'll see what I can do and maybe take another hour. You make some scrumptous points. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Colette. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > What about what the suttas actually say? Maybe it is more accurate to say that "right understanding" [as you define it] is the only action that *you* call for. The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? > > > > > colette: That's a trick question? Isn't it? "What about what the suttas actually say?" Are the suttas speaking of the emptiness of things or are the suttas speaking of the delusions that the mind makes out of the hallucinations gained through the alaya-vijnana? > > The delusions that have been produced and continue as tendencies within the "storehouse consciousness" that you are referring to are the same ones that keep one from understanding anatta. So they are two sides of the same coin. If one had total right understanding, delusion would vanish, but the question is whether you can develop complete right understanding through pariyatti. Will it ever convert, or is more direct experiential practice necessary to make the understanding actual? I think it is the latter. <...> #110846 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:03 pm Subject: Re: The Shunyata of Shunyata, correct? ksheri3 Hi Robert, By definition Pariyatti is an acquired skill through the study of a two dimensional medium/reality like a computer screen or a text book. I do not see who would even both giving such a rediculous conception a moments tenure as having anything to do with reality. I am very much of the school that only admits people based on EXPERIENCE. IF you have never experienced anything outside of a bound text book, never ever took the spoon out of your mouth to utter a word, well, then PETA or PRETA (Hungry Ghost) is all you'll ever be. ALSO, I believe that EXPERIENCE, actualy physically experiencing the concept that is being discussed or considered, is not a 100% completeness of the Buddha's view: IF people are REFLECTIONS from the MIRROR CONSCIOUSNESS THEN books are an actual representation of the REFLECTED IMAGE within your own mind and therefore the "completeness" of the Buddha's concepts cannot be achieved without the understanding of the MIRROR CONSCIOUSNESS which is found only in books i.e. if ya want the baking dough a little flakey then ya add more baking powder, if ya want it moist then ya add more water, etc. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > colette: That's a trick question? Isn't it? "What about what the suttas actually say?" Are the suttas speaking of the emptiness of things or are the suttas speaking of the delusions that the mind makes out of the hallucinations gained through the alaya-vijnana? > ***************** > The delusions that have been produced and continue as tendencies within the "storehouse consciousness" that you are referring to are the same ones that keep one from understanding anatta. So they are two sides of the same coin. If one had total right understanding, delusion would vanish, but the question is whether you can develope complete right understanding through pariyatti. Will it ever convert, or is more direct experiential practice necessary to make the understanding actual? I think it is the latter. ---------------------------------------------------- > > The rest of your reply, although I have no problems with it, seems like fluff, icing on the cake. What is "intention"? What is "effort"? What is "action"? You got it baby! The suttas DO NOT CALL FOR ATTAINING SUCH HEIGHTS SPECIFICALLY THROUGH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING ONLY! > > I don't understand why these are fluff. What do you propose in their place? > colette: I don't propose anything to go into their place. I'm merely pointing out the ignorance that must exist before these things would be IGNORED or ATTEMPTED TO BE PLAYED WITH. Playing with the fundamentals would, probably, change the entire message the Buddha was trying to extend. You would have to be fairily stupid to NOT KNOW THAT HITTING YOUR HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL WILL CAUSE YOUR HEAD TO HURT, but their are idiots out there, in the real world, that wear suits and ties all trussed up for the oven and thanksgiving dinner,well, these meglamaniacs that are slaves of the CORPORATION will automatically stand up and say that "A PRIORI" KNOWLEDGE CANNOT EXIST, WE WORSHIP ONLY "A POSTERIORI" KNOWLEDGE so where is the brick wall that I will hit my head against and prove to you that my head only hurts AFTER I HIT MY HEAD AGAINST THE BRICK WALL. Educational systems and Wall St. and Republican parties are full of these people that cannot exist with the FASCISM that comes with the dictates of the Corporate heirarchy, the Corporate Deity. ------------------------------------------------- > > Good to hear from you Robert. It is a joy to know that my VIPSISSANA and/or INSIGHT has been telling me the truth and guiding me very well through the hazardous BARDOS. It is almost an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE to think and to "practice" in life as I watch the manifestation of a mind-only THOUGHT. > > If you are experiencing the Bardos you are indeed "out of body" as they are non-corporeal states. colette: I APPRECIATE THAT STATEMENT, that position. That kind of candor gives me a lot of room to work through this with you. First of all, how can you be so sure that that which is experienced in the BArdos is "NON-CORPOREAL" (as in physical state) b/c the only material that is out there on Bardo states of consciousness is FROM THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD, which indicates AFTER LIFE i.e. placenta. Is it possible for there to be more states of consciousness other than BETA, ALPHA, THETA, DELTA, when YOGA-NIDRA may actually be a state of consciousness as well? ------------------------------------- If you are experiencing them as you are walking around "in life" you are in a very interesting state of consciousness. colette: "WELCOME TO THE GRAND ILLUSION. COME ON IN AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENIN'. PAY THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FOR THE SHOW" Styx, some local boys I saw playing at a high school dance, then a few years later saw on their opening night at the Auditorium Theater here in Chicago. I have made it clear, since I began finding colleagues and friends on the internet, that I can simply get lost meditating and just walk around for days. I can lose track of weeks, months, which is why, eventhough, I complain about having to walk over the same places, the same streets, the same neighborhoods, I can do so without thinking about WHERE I AM AND WHAT I'M DOING. I have done it so many times that it's routine, ritual, dogmatic behavior that does not require a thought by me or my muscle consciousness, I CAN, THEREFORE, MAINTAIN A SINGLE MEDITATION CONTEMPLATING/THINKING/FOCUSING/CENTERING, ETC, ON A SINGLE CONCEPT OF STRING OF CONCEPTS. Astral Projection and Yoga-Nidra both have similar qualities. Is it possible to "experience" something in the state of Astral Projection and/or Yoga-Nidra and then actually experience the same thing or very similar to that thing in this reality that we call the Beta state of consciousness? -------------------------------------------------- If you are manifesting things directly from thought that is very interesting indeed. Be well! > colette: TIMING! That's the problem. toodles, colette #110847 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. philofillet Hi Herman and Jon and all > At Manly, there was a discussion about whether or not a developing insight / > understanding of reality modifies behaviour. I hope I am not misrepresenting > anyone, but I think Jon was a definite no, pt a maybe, and I a definite yes. If a student of A.S answers no, it seems to contradict everything they've told me about sila. They always say that sila is taken care of or covered by developing understanding of reality, I think they've even said that when there is a moment of understanding reality, there is automatically sila at that moment. Does that mean that moments of sila do not mean moments of modified behaviour? Could you clarify please, Jon? Thanks. Metta, Phil #110848 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awakening egberdina Hi Alex, On 19 October 2010 09:47, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hello Herman, all, > > > I think the idea of awakening or enlightenment originates from >Hinduism. > No doubt, Buddhism has modified that idea, and I like the >Zen appreciation > of it most: > > > > *before enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water > > after enlightenment: chop wood, fetch water...* > > > > I wouldn't be expecting any fireworks, just an acceptance of the >way > >things are. > > Are you saying that Buddhist Awakening (I prefer to use Arhatship) is > nothing more than passive submission to the way things seem to be? > > I think the language you are using is a bit loaded, but in effect, yes. If a resolution to the problem of suffering were possible, then it would come through an end of craving, IMO. What alternative do you see? > I believe that it IS a major event where through wisdom all fetters are > uprooted, and that is spectacular inner event. > > I don't want to rain on the parade you are expecting. I hope you will not be disappointed :-) Cheers Herman > With metta, > > Alex > > > #110849 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:39 pm Subject: The One & Only Way! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the One & Only Way to Purification of Being? Just after enlightenment the Blessed Buddha stayed under a great Banyan tree at Uruvela on the bank of the river Neranjara. There he reflected: There is this single, one and only direct way for the purification of beings, for the relief from all sorrow & grief, for the fading away of all pain and frustration, for achieving the right method, for the realization of Nibbāna, that is, these Four Foundations of Awareness. What four? When a Bhikkhu lives & dwells, aware & clearly comprehending, while always contemplating & reflecting upon: 1: The Body merely as a disgusting & fragile accumulation.. 2: The Feelings just as instantly passing conditioned reactions.. 3: The Mind only as a set of recurring, banal & habituated Moods.. 4: Phenomena only as mentally manifested artificial Appearances.. The 4 Great Frames of Reference... He thereby removes any lust, urge, envy & frustration rooted in this world.. This is indeed verily the one & only direct way for the purification of beings, for the relief from all sorrow & grief, for the fading away of all pain and frustration, for achieving the right method, for the realization of Nibbāna, that is, these Four Foundations of Awareness... Then the Brahma Samapatti, knowing this, instantly appeared before the Blessed One & having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, he raised his joined palms towards the Blessed One, and said to him: So is it! Blessed One. So be it! Well-Gone One. Venerable sir, this is the one & only direct way for purification of beings... The Great Seer of the Silencing of all Becoming, Compassionate, understands this unique 1 Way: By which they all in the past crossed the flood, By which they all cross now in the present, and By which they all will cross ever in any future... Comment: The 'Flood' (Ogha) here means: The Flood of sense-desire (kāmā-ogha) The Flood of wanting to become (bhavā-ogha) The Flood of wrong views (ditthā-ogha) The Flood of ignorance (avijjā-ogha) <...> Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 167-8] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 18 Brahma... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #110850 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> How about a quote to that effect? I don't believe that Buddha ever said: "Development of right understanding through studying Dhamma will by itself lead to the natural arising of Right Effort, Intention and Action without doing anything else. ----- There is only one reason why you find it hard to believe. And that is, you reject the Buddha's "single-citta" definition of the world. ------------------ RE: > It is the only action required. It is not necessary to follow the Noble Eightfold path, but only the Onefold path of Dhamma study - Right Understanding in the form of pariyatti - intellectual understanding - from reading and discussing Dhamma - and all the rest will happen by itself. That's why it's called the 'Noble Onefold Path.'" ------------------ Your conventional definition of the world says that the 8-fold path can be followed one factor at a time. You even go so far as to say it can *only* be followed one factor at a time. Therefore you assume I must be talking about a one-fold path. --------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> The suttas, and the Tipitaka as a whole, teach the eightfold path, which is a citta with eight supramundane cetasikas. There is no doubt about it, ask any serious student of the Dhamma. >> RE: > That's nonsense, there are very serious students of the Dhamma all over the world who believe the Noble Eightfold Path is a path to be followed in life in order to create the conditions for awakening, not "supramundane cetasikas" that arise in a flash after drinking tea and studying Dhamma for a few thousand lifetimes. Hardly *anyone* believes that outside of your "very special school" which you have proudly proclaimed in the past is a tiny minority of Buddhists. --------------------------- Are you suggesting there are *many* paths leading out of samsara? Or would you agree that only one way could be right, and all the rest must be wrong? ---------------------- RE: > Around the world, serious students of Abhidhamma and the commentaries, from Thailand to Burma and back again, practice an Abhidhamma-based version of Insight Meditation based on Abdhidhamma and Vism, ---------------------- That's right, and no two versions are the same. It's a case of "write your own Dhamma and (to give it an air of respectability) throw in a couple of quotes from the Tipitaka." ---------------------------- RE: > which is what you do if you take the texts literally and don't bend them into a mental pretzel. The Buddhist approach of "read and study only" and 'make sure not to do anything else or you will promote Self-View' is very small indeed! ---------------------------- I don't know of anyone who says it quite like that, but I take your point. -------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Intention is not one of the eight path factors. >> RE: > Excuse me....? (1. Right view/Right understanding [sammā-diṭṭhi] ) 2. Right intention/Right resolve [sammā sankappa] What do you call it? -------------------- I call it right thought. Sankappa is a synonym for virati (thought). People who translate it as intention are having two bites at the cherry. Having been disappointed to find intention (cetana) was not among the eight path-factors, they translate sankappa to mean intention. ------------ <. . .> KH: >> The only "actions" that satipatthana calls for are momentary functions performed by the eight path factors. If you insist on interpreting the suttas otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice. >> RE: > Again, I'm not talking at the moment about *interpreting* the suttas at all; I'm talking about *what they actually say.* ------------ What's the difference between a correct interpretation and "what they actually say"? ------------------ RE: > If you don't pay attention to the Buddha's actual words before you go off and interpret them as you please, you are doing the Buddha, yourself, and everyone else a disservice. ------------------ You are clutching at straws, Robert. Surely, our ideal is to hear the true Dhamma, consider and discuss what we have heard, and understand how it applies to the present reality. No one is advocating "inattention to the actual words" or anything like that. ------------------------- RE: >>> and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? >>> KH: >> Yes, they do. Emphatically! >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. ------------------------- I don't know why you have changed the question to "if you only study Dhamma." Originally you had written, "The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they?" The right answer to that question was "yes". The new one, however, brings in possibilities of "study without right understanding" and "study with wrong understanding" and so it is more complicated. Anyway, the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta (The Great Forty) is a good one to quote on this point. But they all say it. :-) Ken H #110851 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! sukinderpal Hi Robert E, > ...For example as > > is often seen expressed, the idea that Jhana is a part of the Path > > Rob: Yes, Buddha expressed this a number of times. S: The development of samatha leading to Jhana involves knowing the harm of "attachment", particularly to sense objects. This understanding is possible outside of the Buddha's sasana. The Noble Eightfold Path on the other hand, being the Fourth Noble Truth is what the Buddha was enlightened to and proclaimed as being the "one and only path" to enlightenment. Unlike samatha / Jhana panna, wisdom of this kind is aimed at eradicating "ignorance". This latter would make the `nature of conditioned realities' it's field of study and obviously include Jhana citta. Jhana development is surely worthy of admiration and therefore the Buddha would at some point make this clear, however since the 8FP is aimed at understanding paramattha dhammas, another reason for Jhana being mentioned so often was because at those times the Buddha was in fact urging his audience to understand Jhana citta and all its components as being conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. In other words, the development of satipatthana overrides any need to develop kusala of other kinds including Jhana. Besides, while Jhana is limited to seeing harm in attachment to sense objects, vipassana panna knows attachment to being and becoming and leads thence to the end of samsara. To put all this differently, while Jhana sees danger in a certain aspect of conditioned realities and aims to overcome it, it does not know any of this as being just that, namely a `conditioned reality' and therefore ends up merely "suppressing". On the other hand vipassana panna whose object is the nature of conditioned dhammas is aimed therefore at "eradicating" ignorance. ========= > or > > that that the path starts with developing sila, through the practice of > > concentration and then only is Right Understanding possible. > > > > While those outside of the Buddha's Dhamma are able to develop samatha > > to the level of Jhana attainments, Buddhists today are not only mistaken > > about the 8FP but also what samatha is and how it is developed. > > Rob: How do you know they are wrong? Is it a matter of faith on your part? S: The saddha would more or less be in direct proportion to the level of right understanding which I can't claim to have much of. In any case, you'd understand from what I've written above why I say what I say. But I'll add that, given that samatha development starts with knowing the difference between kusala and akusala in daily life, talk about trying to develop Jhana with no indication of any interest in the former, seems like `ambition' lead by an ideal. This is not knowing oneself / being in touch with reality. And with regard to the development of the 8FP, this in fact begins with pariyatti without which patipatti can't arise. The apparent overlooking of the need for continued development through listening and discussing and instead jumping on to a self-projected idea about `practice' is clear indication therefore, of lack of that very basic level of understanding needed as a starting point. Given the above it should now be clear why I consider most Buddhists today to be quite confused. ;-) ======== > > Now as to the question directly: > > "whether intentional activities directed towards the development of > > awareness/insight are of a different calibre (i.e., `better') than > > practices that clearly have no connection whatsoever with the > > development of the path". > > > > The question I think is, at the moment when one thinks "to do" here, > > this must be motivated by self view, > > Rob: Why? Why does "doing" have to motivated by self view? Have you ever thought this through, or is it just a token of your chosen philosophy? S: Well `thinking through' is not necessarily a virtue as much attachment is likely involved, worse when wrong view ends up being encouraged. Why I conclude that `self view' must necessarily be involved in any thought to meditate or even in `trying to do good' for example? The imperative for any student of the Dhamma is to understand that there are at any given moment only paramattha dhammas. Not only this, but also that one citta arises at a time to experience one object and this too, fallen away already. In other words, the object of Right Understanding is always the present moment which is accompanied by a corresponding level of detachment to the idea of self and control. After all why would that which sees the present moment as being conditioned already, intend then to be involved in certain activities in the future aimed at this very kind of understanding? The idea of self is intimately tied to the idea of control. In this regard the average Buddhist, those who believe in `doings' is no different from those who believe in God. The theist can't help attributing `control' to God, since he can't find any other explanation seeing that the mechanism *must* exist somewhere. He does not understand conditionality where `self' has no place, and would therefore not even want to hear about such a thing. The meditator is in a similar position, since he does not want to acknowledge that this very moment there are only conditioned realities rising and falling away beyond control, and instead gets caught up in the idea of a `self' moving in time. He thinks in terms of future results coming from what he does now or will do later. But there is no one to receive any fruits, so why are such ideas necessitated? The answer is, "self view". ========= > and could this be right? It would > > seem that this is not only not knowing the Path but mistaking what is > > wrong practice for right. This must then necessarily be followed by > > 'illusions of result' which then becomes an object of clinging and more > > wrong understanding with regard to what is and what is not the correct > > Path. > > Rob: What if you have an illusion of result based on your own chosen idea of "right understanding" of Dhamma as you define it? S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion of result. However this will not be due to what you state as "my chosen idea of right understanding", being that it is one which demands attention to what the reality is "now". ========= Rob: What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this interfere with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive is that it is the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. ======== Rob: Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is correct? S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking now for example, are real? What more do you need in order to be convinced that there is only ever the present moment which can be known hence needed to be object of Right Understanding? ======== Rob: What if your view of right understanding is itself "wrong understanding?" How would you eve find out? Wouldn't you be trapped in a downward spiral of one akusala thought generating another, even though you are convinced you are right? Couldn't you be trapped in false concepts? S: A good way of describing the mechanism. ;-) But do you see any way out of this predicament other than careful study and engaging in discussions with wise friends? ======== > > Any good it would seem, must depend entirely on some Right View > > accumulated in previous lives to condition a moment of understanding > > "now" manifested then as being in spite of the wrong view held so far. > > And when this happens would one then still insist on the kind of > > intentional practice? > > Rob: Well, I think we have to pray that our view of Right View is correct. Because if it is wrong and we keep clinging to it, and using it to measure our own and others practice, we may wind up in a much worse place next lifetime. S: Doubt will arise as long as we are not Sotapanna yet. But doubt is just another conditioned reality which when known incites a level of confidence one which is quite opposed to the idea suggested by you of "praying that our right view is correct". ;-) ======= Rob: What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as Right View? It must not be pretty. S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I can't accept. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #110852 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Ari), I appreciate the way you reflect carefully on what we all say and what the texts say as well. Thanks for including me in your discussions. Moving your post around as I respond to the part addressed to me first: >Sarah, I remember when I listened to A.S talks this topic came up, and you and others dismissed the idea of "cutting off at feeling" because every citta has a feeling element. ... >S: Or to be precise, evey single citta is accompanied by feeling - pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. And, yes, we place a lot of store in our feelings, usually reacting with attachment to pleasant feelings and aversion to unpleasant feelings. This is why the second khandha is vedana khandha. However, the teachings are about "understanding" feelings and other dhammas, not "cutting off at feeling" or at anything else. .... >But when the above kind of process is examined, can't you see how, if conditioned by understanding of course, a cutting off of the proliferation process at feeling could occur? .... S: OK, I see your point. The more understanding of feelings and other dhammas, the less proliferation out of lobha and moha there is likely to be on account of those feelings and other dhammas. This is a natural process as a result of understanding and awareness, not a "trying to cut off" anything. .... >Forget about whether one is trying to do it or not, just whether the notion that a "cutting off at feeling" that arose through understanding could have meaning, even though all cittas are accompanied by feeling. It is a kind of paradoxical thing that I can't wrap my head around. .... S: So as feeling arises at every moment with every citta, are you suggesting that there is therefore some "cutting off" at every moment? I would prefer to say that through the development of understanding there is less attachment/aversion and more detachment towards feelings and other dhammas, so there is less tendency to perceive and proliferate with lobha/dosa and moha on account of what has been experienced. The only "cutting off" that ever occurs, as far as I understand the teacings, is the "cutting off" of the kilesas and their latent tendencies at the various stage of enlightenment. This of course if performed by lokuttara panna, not by anyone's intention or will. ..... S: Back to the first part of your message to check if I've missed anything: --- On Mon, 18/10/10, philip wrote: Following up on what I wrote this morning... > Ph: I'll write more later, and perhaps ask others to join, because it's always interested me something Sarah said in a recorded talk, but not cutting off "of",but cutting off "at", and not a forceful cutting off, but just dropping the process of proliferation that starts arising from pleasant or unpleasant feelings. .... S: The proliferations of thinking, usually with attachment, arise because of our accumulated tendencies for such. With more understanding of dhammas as dhammas, not belonging to anyone of us, gradually there is less such akusala proliferation. This is not by attempts to either "forcefully" or "not forcefully" drop/cut off anything. .... >Ph: I was hoping to find the passage I read that talked about this cutting off at feeling, I think it was in a book called "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Nyanaponika (?) but here is Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his introduction to the section of the Samyutta Nikaya on vedana (feeling): "Feeling is a key link in the chain of dependent origination, the immediate precursor of craving, and thus to break the chain requires that our defiled responses to feeling be overcome....the Buddha's system of mental training aims at controlling our reactions to these feelings at the very point where they arise, without allowing the to proliferate and call their corresponding tendencies into play." .... S: The only way that the chain of D.O. is broken is through the eradication of ignorance and attachment, not "controlling our reactions..." No one ever became an ariyan by attempting to control anything. Understanding is the key, not control. And that understanding has to understand dhammas as anatta from the very beginning. .... >Have you ever studied the Honeyball sutta? It's a wonderful teaching on how the mind proliferates in response to pleasant, unplesant and neutral feelings... Here is the key passage: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. "Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises... "Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises... "Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises... "Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises... "Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect. ******* S: I love this sutta too. So very, very true and relevant to your discussion. I'd like to hear Ari's comments on it as well. Here there is a great description of what occurs throughout our day. There is no reference to "cutting off" anything at feeling. It's all about understanding the Truths of the cycle of samsara, not about "control". .... >I personally am not an insight-seeking meditator, I am a tranquility-seeking meditator, so although I have talked about the idea of "cutting off at feeling" it is not something I am familiar with practicing, but insight meditators here could tell you more. If there is anyone who feels that "cutting off at feeling" is a helpful concept to explore, please take over at this point. .... S: Well, you dragged me into this one:-)) Personally, I think that both insight-seekers or tranquillity-seekers with or without the "meditator" tag are looking for trouble. At moments of kusala, such as moments of wise reflection now, there is calm without any seeking. Back to this moment again.... .... S: As for the other discussion we were having and the detail I quoted on mindfulness of the body that sent you to sleep, in very brief, the points were that: 1. In reality, there is no body, Phil's, Sarah's or anyone else's. 2. There are only various rupas taken to be a body (through all that proliferation, again). 3. So now, there can be awareness of tangible object - heat/hardness/pressure, but there can never be an experience of body except by thinking. 4. Understanding elements/dhammas leads to more detachment, less conceit and attachment on account of this body. Hope you struggled through that:-) Metta Sarah p.s All, we're about to be on the move again - apologies for slow replies. ====== #110853 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:13 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > ------------------------- dear Robert The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... ""When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, alert with keen ears, attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of vital importance, directing his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental Hindrances are absent in him. On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards complete fulfilment...>endquote complete Fulfilment coincides with nibbana robert #110854 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:17 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. rjkjp1 > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > ------------------------- dear Robert Sangitti sutta The vimuttayatanam The 5 bases of deliverance: XXV. "Five bases of deliverance; here the teacher or a respected fellow disciple teaches a monk Dhamma. And as he receives the teaching, he gains a grasp of both the spirit and the letter of the teaching. At this, joy arises in him, and from this joy, delight; and by this delight his senses are calmed, he feels happiness as a result, and with this happiness his mind is established [he attains nibbana];" Robert #110855 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. rjkjp1 : > > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > > ------------------------- Dear Robert "Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states. For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right knowledge springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance springs up. Anguttara Nikaya 10:121" robert #110856 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:02 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Phil, Ari and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Sarah, I remember when I listened to A.S talks this topic came up, and you and others dismissed the idea of "cutting off at feeling" because every citta has a feeling element. But when the above kind of process is examined, can't you see how, if conditioned by understanding of course, a cutting off of the proliferation process at feeling could occur? Forget about whether one is trying to do it or not, just whether the notion that a "cutting off at feeling" that arose through understanding could have meaning, even though all cittas are accompanied by feeling. It is a kind of paradoxical thing that I can't wrap my head around. I think it is a semantic problem mainly, based on the translations into English and the English word "feeling" and of a functional difference between "basic feeling-reaction," which is really like a "pre-emotion" and more complex emotion that arises further down the chain of DO. I don't know how it comes across in other languages, whether it is the same problem. It drove me crazy during a period a little while back when I was trying to find out what "vedana" really was. I remember questioning several people over and over again - is "vedana" an emotion or a sensation? I got some confusing answers, because when they would say "feeling" I would not know if they meant a physical feeling or an emotional feeling. And then they would say "well it's not sensation, but it's not really emotion. Sensation would be more part of "contact" and vedana really is "feeling," [but not an emotion.] In English we use the same word for both very often, so translating vedana as "feeling" is a kind of nasty trick to play on an English-language speaker. Finally I came to understand that vedana is a very basic "emotional reaction," but not in the sense that we use the word "emotion," because what we call "emotion" is more complex than vedana, and is already in the realm of proliferation. So when you talk about "cutting off at a feeling," I understand that you are saying not to proliferate beyond vedana and create a more complex emotional state based on further thought and reaction. To put it more clearly, I would say something ridiculous like: After experiencing basic emotional reactivity as "pleasant/desirable" or "unpleasant/undesirable" [vedana] it is possible to detach from that basic reaction and disengage from further proliferations of thought and emotion based on that basic vedana reaction, thus stopping the personal cycle of DO and not creating further kamma. While it is impossible to cut off vedana, which arises automatically at contact, it is possible to cut off these further proliferations, and that could be called "cutting off at a feeling." My understanding is that this is what takes place for an arahant - that they still experience vedana, but not proliferations. I think what you said about it made perfect sense - you basically said the same thing - but since you were uncertain about it I thought I'd give my understanding of it, and express it in a more convoluted way. Let me know if it makes any sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110857 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] practice. epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 10/18/2010 2:49:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I lost your mail where you suggested to use the term development > instead of practice. > ------------------------------------------------- > It was on the 16th in a post on the thread "should one try one's > best?", and I wrote the following to Jon (and Robert): 'development' instead of 'practice', Jon, as translation of 'bhavana', that > might clarify these discussions a bit, I think.> > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I meant to answer because I found that you > formulated that very well. > ----------------------------------------------- > Thanks. :-) The term 'development', while allowing for instances of > volition as conditions, has the distinct advantage of being impersonal and > not suggesting an agent/actor/self. > ---------------------------------------------- > > > Practice is a term that is so loaded. One thinks of a self who is > doing the practice. > ------------------------------------------- > Yes. That is exactly right. > ------------------------------------------- I agree that "development" might be a more agreeable way to discuss this; however, it does take away the real issue, which is whether a "practice" - an actual procedure or action of "doing something" can be kusala, can be udnertaken as a legitimate part of the Noble Eightfold Path, and whether Right Practice refers to meditation that is intentionally taken up by the practitioner. I think that the more general idea of "development" is ultimately the fruit of both practice and Dhamma study, so it is a happy common denominator, but does not really address the reality of practice and its status on the path. They're not the same thing. > The Pali term pa.tipatti is hard to translate. In > Thai it is explained as arriving at what is specific, and then > elaborated: the specific characteristics of realities. True, > understanding of the characteristics of realities that appear is to > be developed. > Development is fine, but then arises the question of right effort, > and we have the term effort to cope with. The question is "what creates the conditions for arriving at what is specific and elaborating," the understanding of realities? The question is whether only Dhamma study and contemplation is kusala, or whether Right Practice taken on with Right View is a legitimate way to develop the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110858 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: self. > > Creationists disagree with science, but they still fly to their conferences in scientifically designed aeroplanes. > _____________ Dear KenH You think scientists are superior to creationists? Everyone of the leading creationists I know of are scientists themselves, but disagree with the current scientific worldview - which is entirely materialistic, and promoted using very high pressure propaganda targeted at chidren. And western science sprung out of christianity with icons like Issac Newton believing his findings showed the beauty of creation robert #110859 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (and Ari and all) > > Absolutely, what you go on to say below. I actually meant to come back and clarify, tranquility meditation is not to be dismissed, and in my oponion there is valuable tranquility meditation short of the jhanas as well, as in the example I gave on the train, and countless other examples. And the factors developed are considered to be "jhana factors" even short of the jhanas, I think. Now, our friends may be right when they say that if there is akusala involved we can't speak of this being kusala, technically speaking, and can't call them jhana factors, certainly. I don't know about all that. But certainly when Ari and I exchanged a post suggesting that there was something bad about "blissing out" that was wrong. > > BTW, from the way Ari described her meditation several weeks back, it sounds like she settles into a non-distracted, non-monkey mindish state quite easily, and doesn't suffer from the drowsiness I do. It's interesting that although she doesn't yet have the bookish knowledge of the Dhamma that many of us here do, she might have better acquired conditions for seeking jhanas, also she lives in an area that sounds conducive to it. It could be nice evidence that it is not bookish knowledge of the Dhamma that makes for that, she (so to speak) might have been good at jhanas in a past life, for example. Whether it is from a past life or not, there's no doubt that there are some people who are naturally a lot calmer and more centered than I am! I reached a point of greater centeredness for a while years ago when I was practicing T'ai Chi regularly and swimming about a mile a day. Man I was relaxed and felt good! Well that was a long time ago. But it's true that some of us think all the time and may be more naturally primed for an intellectual or insight path, and others are able to reach a calm state more easily. All the more why I really appreciate meditation when it gives me a few moments of peacefulness. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110860 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:25 pm Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > > Hi Alex, > > You could be right. But you did the same thing. We were talking >about scientific facts and why they didn't lead to enlightenment. >The answer I suggested was that only panna (and the 8fold path) led >to enlightenment. Then you went sideways and asked how panna was >developed. > > This is the thing, the scientists do not practice, unlike Buddhist meditators. Scientists often just study the theory and sometimes run experiments. Sure they may talk about how at quantum level there is this energy and no solid particles, but do they act on that knowledge? Do they behave in line with anatta and "ultimately no conceptual objects". > > > > No, there are no conventional actions to be done. > > Are there conventional actions (such as killing parents, killing Arahants, wounding the Buddha, creating schism in sangha) to be avoided? > > > >The path is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa, >whichever nama or rupa it happens to be. > > Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? > How should one develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa at that time? Can that time be as good as any other occasion to develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa? > > That would be awesome if it were part of the path... As I have recently understood it, a kusala understanding of akusala is just as valuable as a kusala understanding of kusala, so those Kung-Fu girls are fully eligible for contemplation of arising dhammas. Have fun! And don't forgot the popcorn. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110861 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:28 pm Subject: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <> Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? ___________________________- Dear Alex sure it can, seeing or hearing or thinking, or feeling arises while watching and so can undersatdning of these realties robert #110862 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:53 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Robert Interesting. But can't it be assumed that we are feeding a hindrance when watching those movies? Is an action undertaken with certain knowledge that it is a nutriment for a hindrance part of the path? Not being confrontational, just curious if we can all agree that there are certain conventional behaviours that are certain to be contrary to developing the path. If one accumulates moments of lust (for sex, violence, whatever) while watching those movies, can a reflectin "this is seeing, this is visible object, this is anatta" be of any possible value? Isn't it just justification for accumulating harmful behaviour? Why don't we go all the way and turn the kung fu movie into a porn movie. I wonder if you would go so far as to justify watching porn? If porn is part of the path, it is good news for me, I am developing the path. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <> Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? > ___________________________- > Dear Alex > sure it can, seeing or hearing or thinking, or feeling arises while watching and so can undersatdning of these realties > robert > #110863 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? egberdina Hi Rob K, On 19 October 2010 17:28, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "truth_aerator" <> Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls > violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other > in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? > ___________________________- > Dear Alex > sure it can, > Your statement is about what is possible. seeing or hearing or thinking, or feeling arises while watching and so can undersatdning of these realties Your statement ignores what is probable. To the extent that you present your argument as though possible and probable are the same, you are negligent in representing the Dhamma. SN56.48 "Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?" "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole." "It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" Cheers Herman robert > > > #110864 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:00 am Subject: Re: Present Moment philofillet Hi Rob E > Whether it is from a past life or not, there's no doubt that there are some people who are naturally a lot calmer and more centered than I am! I don't think it's a teaching from the suttas, but there is a commentarial teaching that we are born with a different balance of the three akusala roots and the three kusala roots. Metta, Phil #110865 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:06 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) philofillet Hi Sarah Thank you kindly for your reply, especially when you hint at being busy with another move. (? Did my reference to the evils of surfing encourage you to move away from that frothy web of sensual degradation? I certainly hope so! Haha, it's a joke.) I *will* print out and read this one, and be back to you in a few days. I probably won't have much to add. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil (& Ari), > > I appreciate the way you reflect carefully on what we all say and what the texts say as well. Thanks for including me in your discussions. > > Moving your post around as I respond to the part addressed to me first: > #110866 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again Robert On second thought, I will withdraw my question to you. I already know the answer, thanks. Metta, Phil #110867 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Rob E and Ken H, Op 19-okt-2010, om 4:59 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > I call it right thought. > > Sankappa is a synonym for virati (thought). People who translate it > as intention are having two bites at the cherry. Having been > disappointed to find intention (cetana) was not among the eight > path-factors, they translate sankappa to mean intention. ------- N: Just adding to the translation of sankappa. Sankappa is vitakka cetasika, not virati which is abstention from akusala. The function of vitakka is to hit or strike at the object. Sammaa sankappa assists sammaa di.t.thi, while it hits the naama or ruupa that is the object of awareness and right understanding, so that sammaa di.t.thi can see it as it is. Sammaa sankappa and sammaa di.t.thi are called the wisdom of the eightfold Path. The factors are classified as threefold: as siila, concentration and wisdom. It is not right to translate sammaa sankappa as right intention, but I know that this is often done. ------- Nina. #110868 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Tue, 19/10/10, philip wrote: >Thank you kindly for your reply, especially when you hint at being busy with another move. (? Did my reference to the evils of surfing encourage you to move away from that frothy web of sensual degradation? I certainly hope so! Haha, it's a joke.) ... S: Haha indeed! Don't worry, we took all your surfing jokes in our stride:-) We're just back to Hong Kong for Jon's work - yes, time to take a break from all this "frothy web of sensual degradation" and time to pay the bills for it:-) By "another move", I meant "another trip". .... >I *will* print out and read this one, and be back to you in a few days. I probably won't have much to add. ... S: That's fine. I appreciate your letting me know. Metta Sarah ====== #110869 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions for wisdom egberdina Hi Rob E, On 19 October 2010 17:25, Robert E wrote: > > > As I have recently understood it, a kusala understanding of akusala is just > as valuable as a kusala understanding of kusala, so those Kung-Fu girls are > fully eligible for contemplation of arising dhammas. Have fun! And don't > forgot the popcorn. > > Teach your children well (Crosby Stills Nash Young) Cheers Herman #110870 From: "antony272b2" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, I found the companion sutta to Majjhima 2 as Majjhima 38: "Good, Bhikkhus! You say this and I also say it. Thus when this is present, that happens. When this arises, that arise. That is, because of ignorance, [volitional] formations arise. Because of [volitional] formations, consciousness arises. Because of consciousness, name and form arise. Because of name and form, the sixfold sense base arises. Because of the sixfold sense base, contact arises. Because of contact, feelings arise. Because of feelings, craving arises. Because of craving, clinging arises. Because of clinging, becoming arises. Because of becoming, birth arises. Because of birth, old age, sickness, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress arise. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha. "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir." http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm With metta / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Antony, > > > >Now I'm asking helpful questions free of self-view including: > > > > "Is this dukkha?" > > "Is this the origination of dukkha?" > > "Is this the cessation of dukkha?" > > "Is this the way leading to the cessation of dukkha?" > > (adapted from Majjhima 2) > > .... > > S: Whether these questions are "free of self-view' will depend on whether there is any understanding of realities now, as we reflect on dukkha. For example, if we ask whether the computer or cup on our desks are dukkha, atta-view is still there in the question - no understanding of visible object or tangible object as anatta at such a time. > > > > A subtle path - and in the end, not a matter of the words that are used, but the understanding at this very moment. Is it a siren or a sound that is heard now? People chattering, a car horn, or just sound? Any idea of "something" as dukkha now? > > ... > Antony: In comprehending dukkha (the duty of the First Noble Truth) I categorize the situation based on this sutta quote: > "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; association with what is not loved is dukkha, separation from what is loved is dukkha, not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > Antony: I'm still a beginner on the five aggregates. I found SN22.95 A Lump of Foam very helpful: > http://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html#sn22.095 > Another sutta SN22.85 draws a distinction between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates: > "These same five aggregates of clinging, to which he does not become engaged and to which he does not cling, lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time." > > > >Thanks for listening. Happy Uposatha Day everyone! > > .... > > S: Many thanks for your very helpful sharing. I'll look forward to any more! > > > > Sorry you won't be joining us on Sat in Manly. Another time.... > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ===== > Antony: Thanks for all your thoughtful replies over the years. And it was great to meet you in 2005 which I'll continue to remember. > > Metta / Antony. > #110871 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina, On 19 October 2010 19:31, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > It is not right to translate sammaa sankappa as right intention, but > > I know that this is often done. > ------- > You rightly express that right translations are important ( This is not a comment on the specifics above), so I thought it would be a good time to begin with asking some questions about your book "The Buddhist Teaching on Physical Phenomena". In your section on the great elements, on the water element you begin with something you call cohesion, a la the Atthasalini: . . . For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they are called rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, palm-seeds, elephant-tusks, ox-horns, etc. All such things the element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding. Then you have the MN 28 version: . . . Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an individual or derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal . . . What, in your thinking, allows you to say that there is anything even remotely similar between these accounts, that are separated by about 800 years of thinking? Cheers Herman #110872 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/18/2010 5:32:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Well I think there is a problem with attributing "emptiness" to a dhamma as a positive characteristic. I have had this discussion here in some detail in the past, so won't go into it fully. But I think this is a good example of taking something the Buddha taught and turning it into an objective structure, as if it is an "is" rather than an "is not." Anatta means "no self," not "the presence of a no-self." To turn no-self or emptiness into a positive structure that is "part of" a dhamma is awfully close to the excesses of some Mahayana schools that have turned these absences of self or meaning into positive mystical attributes. ======================================== This is a point well made! I'm not so sure about your statement with regard to Mahayana schools reifying emptiness, though. What schools did you have in mind? Certainly not those growing out of the teachings of Nagarjuna who taught the emptiness of emptiness. In fact, in his main work he wrote something to the effect that all things are empty, but he who makes a "thing" of emptiness is hopeless. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110873 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 18-okt-2010, om 16:07 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I don't think the point of the practice is to be aware of the > "gross conceptual level" either, but I do think there is a > progression from being mindful of the presence of the body in a > general way, and then becoming increasingly aware of the specific > dhammas that this breaks down into. Do you think that is wrong, put > that way? In any case, I will look at the commentary and get a more > clear idea of what is at play. Maybe I will be able to talk about > it a little more precisely with further study. ------- N: The sutta only deals with dhammas, realities, not with the body in general. After each section of this sutta it is said to contemplate the origination dhammas and cessation dhammas. It is all about dhammas, not ideas or concepts. We cling so much to the body as a whole, but we can learn that there is no body, that there is only one dhamma or reality appearing at a time. I see this as a beginning. Thus, not beginning with body, but beginning with a dhamma. Whatever appears now is only a dhamma. Hardness is a dhamma, it is not belonging to the body, because the body is only a concept of a whole. We can verify this now, while touching. There are heat, cold or hardness, and these are ruupas. I like this from the commentary: further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam > uttaruttari anapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the > increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. > > For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to > the highest extent > ----- N: The highest extent: not my body, nothing that I own or are possessor of. Nina. #110874 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] practice. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 19-okt-2010, om 8:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I agree that "development" might be a more agreeable way to discuss > this; however, it does take away the real issue, which is whether a > "practice" - an actual procedure or action of "doing something" can > be kusala, can be undertaken as a legitimate part of the Noble > Eightfold Path, and whether Right Practice refers to meditation > that is intentionally taken up by the practitioner. ------- N: All these issues and the debates that follow seem to be about definitions. When one listens to the Dhamma and considers it, understanding of 'no self who is doing it all' can really grow. Then one does not have to wonder anymore about: should there be an effort, how does one practise, what are the conditions for development, what is meditation. Meditation or mental development is to occur at this very moment, not at other moments. --------- R: > I think that the more general idea of "development" is ultimately > the fruit of both practice and Dhamma study, so it is a happy > common denominator, but does not really address the reality of > practice and its status on the path. They're not the same thing.... > ------- N: Dhamma study and practice I see as being the same: a little more understanding of seeing now: nobody can make it occur, it occurs just now because there are conditions for it. That is Dhamma study of the present reality, and only that is real study. Otherwise study is all in vain. -------- > R: The question is "what creates the conditions for arriving at > what is specific and elaborating," the understanding of realities? > The question is whether only Dhamma study and contemplation is > kusala, or whether Right Practice taken on with Right View is a > legitimate way to develop the path. ------- N: Studying dhamma now is the practice. We learn that whatever arises is conditioned. Thinking about all these things you mention is also conditioned, it is only a dhamma, not your thinking or my thinking. This truly helps not to attach too much importance to thoughts, definitions, words we write, to wondering: is it this way or that way. BTW I am taking a break for the long weekend. ----- Nina. #110875 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 19-okt-2010, om 12:45 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > What, in your thinking, allows you to say that there is anything even > remotely similar between these accounts, that are separated by > about 800 > years of thinking? ------- N: Co:For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid... sutta M: Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an individual or derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat,... ------- N: The commentary elaborates on the characteristic of cohesion. It explains, when we notice iron, and different hard objects we can remember that it is cohesion that holds them together. Without it they would fall apart. Just some simple examples from daily life to illustrate the characteristic of cohesion. The sutta wants to help people to detach from the fluid in the body. We find bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat so important, thinking of them as belonging to mebut they are just the element of liquidity. Different aspects are emphasized in the case of the commentary text above and the sutta text. I appreciate it that you read my book on Physical Phenomena. Nina. #110876 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:45 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > How about a quote to that effect? I don't believe that Buddha ever said: > > "Development of right understanding through studying Dhamma will by itself lead to the natural arising of Right Effort, Intention and Action without doing anything else. > ----- > > There is only one reason why you find it hard to believe. And that is, you reject the Buddha's "single-citta" definition of the world. Well I would merely repeat my very simple request: Please give me a quote from the Buddha to that effect. The Buddha either said directly that all that is necessary is Right Understanding and everything else will follow by itself, or he did not. Only two possibilities there. Did he say it or not? If he did, please give me a relevant quote. Or else say "there is no such quote." I will be content either way, but I'd like a definite answer. It's not about what I accept or not - it's not about me, as you would like to make it. It's about whether or not the Buddha said what you have stated he said, and in what text I can find his statement. I'd also be happy to see a direct statement from the Buddha that he has a "single-citta" definition of the world, as you state above. If you show me where the Buddha said that directly, I will not reject it. I trust the Buddha, but I need to see his statement to that effect. Where shall I go to read that quote? > ------------------ > RE: > It is the only action required. It is not necessary to follow the Noble Eightfold path, but only the Onefold path of Dhamma study - Right Understanding in the form of pariyatti - intellectual understanding - from reading and discussing Dhamma - and all the rest will happen by itself. That's why it's called the 'Noble Onefold Path.'" > ------------------ > > Your conventional definition of the world says that the 8-fold path can be followed one factor at a time. You even go so far as to say it can *only* be followed one factor at a time. I...did...not...say...that. I said that the path factors don't happen by themselves, which you can also disagree with, but I never said they only happen one at a time. Right Action, Right Understanding and Right Livelihood can certainly take place at the same time. Right Concentration and Right Understanding can take place at the same time. So...no, I didn't say that. I think you're so used to disagreeing with me, that you're not that picky about what you're disagreeing with me about. > Therefore you assume I must be talking about a one-fold path. No, I am saying you have a One-fold path, because *you* think that the only thing that can be done is to study Dhamma and understand it, and that none of the other steps of the path are "steps of the path," but events that happen to you willy-nilly while you're discussing or contemplating Dhamma, or perhaps between. Does Right Livelihood descend on you too? Or do you have to go out and get a job? > --------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> The suttas, and the Tipitaka as a whole, teach the eightfold path, which is a citta with eight supramundane cetasikas. There is no doubt about it, ask any serious student of the Dhamma. > >> > > RE: > That's nonsense, there are very serious students of the Dhamma all over the world who believe the Noble Eightfold Path is a path to be followed in life in order to create the conditions for awakening, not "supramundane cetasikas" that arise in a flash after drinking tea and studying Dhamma for a few thousand lifetimes. Hardly *anyone* believes that outside of your "very special school" which you have proudly proclaimed in the past is a tiny minority of Buddhists. > --------------------------- > > Are you suggesting there are *many* paths leading out of samsara? Or would you agree that only one way could be right, and all the rest must be wrong? I think the question is a mistake, but I'll give you my answer: the eightfold path has eight components. They are the right components of the path. How they are engaged and experienced by people of different temperaments can vary, just as a monk and a householder will live and experience the path in different ways. So the path and the principles of the path do not vary, but the form in which the path is taken of course varies. As you know, even in your philosophy, there are several orders and ways in which the path can occur to people of different predilections and capacities. But no, it does not have to take place in the way that you think it does. The path factors have to be fulfilled, but you may not have the final word on how that can and does take place. Also, you may be wrong. You are a mere mortal in samsara, making your own best choices, but you are not omniscient nor infallible in your understanding. > ---------------------- > RE: > Around the world, serious students of Abhidhamma and the commentaries, from Thailand to Burma and back again, practice an Abhidhamma-based version of Insight Meditation based on Abdhidhamma and Vism, > ---------------------- > > That's right, and no two versions are the same. It's a case of "write your own Dhamma and (to give it an air of respectability) throw in a couple of quotes from the Tipitaka." Your version of Abhidhamma is also contradicted by other interpretations, so your school is one among many, whether you like it or not. All the schools think they are the only one is correct. My own approach is to believe that there is value in parts of the schools and that each person has to ferret out their own understanding, using a variety of means and experiences to find the terms of the path for themselves. But if you are a fundamentalist, you must think your interpretation is infallible and 100% correct. That is the definition of a zealot. > ---------------------------- > RE: > which is what you do if you take the texts literally and don't bend them into a mental pretzel. The Buddhist approach of "read and study only" and 'make sure not to do anything else or you will promote Self-View' is very small indeed! > ---------------------------- > > I don't know of anyone who says it quite like that, but I take your point. > > -------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> Intention is not one of the eight path factors. > >> > > RE: > Excuse me....? > > (1. Right view/Right understanding [sammā-diṭṭhi] ) > > 2. Right intention/Right resolve [sammā sankappa] > > What do you call it? > -------------------- > > I call it right thought. > > Sankappa is a synonym for virati (thought). People who translate it as intention are having two bites at the cherry. Having been disappointed to find intention (cetana) was not among the eight path-factors, they translate sankappa to mean intention. Why doesn't he just call it virati? If you look at Buddha's components of samma sankapa, it stands for thoughts that define one's intentions, even if you do think of it as thought. the thought of renunciation contains the intention to renounce desire and embrace the path; the thought of good will intends to maintain good will and not to fall into ill will the thought of harmlessness is famous for putting forth the admonition -- intention -- to abstain from all forms of violence and to think and behave in a peaceful way. So there is no doubt, however the word may be translated, that samma sankapa does not denote the kinds of "right thoughts" that are covered by "right view," where it is about understanding, but about developing and carrying forth the correct intentions, and then acting on them. Ahimsa - harmlessness - is the most obvious example. > ------------ > <. . .> > KH: >> The only "actions" that satipatthana calls > for are momentary functions performed by the eight path factors. If you insist on interpreting the suttas otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice. > >> > > RE: > Again, I'm not talking at the moment about *interpreting* the suttas at all; I'm talking about *what they actually say.* > ------------ > > What's the difference between a correct interpretation and "what they actually say"? That's a statement worthy of Orwell, or Alice in Wonderland when the Mad Hatter I think says "things mean whatever I want them to mean." I'm talking about *the words.* After that one may discuss the interpretation that you think is correct. First you have to have an actual acknowledgment of what was said. You can't just make it up and say 'he said it' when he didn't. If you don't start with what was actually said, you can't possibly know whether your interpretation is "correct" or not. > ------------------ > RE: > If you don't pay attention to the > Buddha's actual words before you go off and interpret them as you please, you are doing the Buddha, yourself, and everyone else a disservice. > ------------------ > > You are clutching at straws, Robert. Surely, our ideal is to hear the true Dhamma, consider and discuss what we have heard, and understand how it applies to the present reality. No one is advocating "inattention to the actual words" or anything like that. "hear the true Dhamma." That's right. But you can't decide in advance what's true based on your own beliefs. I prefer to talk about what was said by Buddha than what you think he meant. > ------------------------- > RE: >>> and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they? > >>> > > KH: >> Yes, they do. Emphatically! > >> > > RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > ------------------------- > > I don't know why you have changed the question to "if you only study Dhamma." Originally you had written, "The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they?" > > The right answer to that question was "yes". The new one, however, brings in possibilities of "study without right understanding" and "study with wrong understanding" and so it is more complicated. > > Anyway, the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta (The Great Forty) is a good one to quote on this point. But they all say it. :-) We shall see. If they all say it, BTW, give me a few more examples. Meanwhile I'll look at this one. We'll see if you have inserted your own favorite ideas into the Buddha's words. I'll get back to you. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110877 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:58 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I don't know why you have changed the question to "if you only study Dhamma." Originally you had written, "The suttas quoted above call directly for intention, effort and action, and they don't say to get it through right understanding, now do they?" > > The right answer to that question was "yes". The new one, however, brings in possibilities of "study without right understanding" and "study with wrong understanding" and so it is more complicated. Well I am interested in both questions, both simple and complex. :-) > Anyway, the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta (The Great Forty) is a good one to quote on this point. But they all say it. :-) The Great Forty is beautiful! I haven't looked at it lately, and got more out of it this time than in the past. Superb. I will say more about it in the future. It's worthy of quite a bit of contemplation. Any commentaries on the Great Forty I can consult? Thanks. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110878 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:25 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? truth_aerator Hello Phil, RobertK2, all, >P:Interesting. But can't it be assumed that we are feeding a >hindrance when watching those movies? This is what I am thinking as well. It appears that the more I watch, the more hindrances are there. >P:If one accumulates moments of lust (for sex, violence, whatever) >while watching those movies, can a reflectin "this is seeing, this >is visible object, this is anatta" be of any possible value? This is what I am concerned, accumulating more unwholesome things. >Isn't it just justification for accumulating harmful behaviour? >Why don't we go all the way and turn the kung fu movie into a porn >movie. I wonder if you would go so far as to justify watching porn? >If porn is part of the path, it is good news for me, I am developing >the path. Unfortunately I think that I have a bigger problem. These video clips on Youtube are violent, bloody and aggressive. I don't think that porn is as bad as this "art". I got so much kilesas... The few positive things that I've learned from this: a) Sense restraint is a must. But some here may say that it is a practice that reinforces the Self. b) Since some of these clips are from 80s, checking them now and then gives additional thought about aging and impermanence. With metta, Alex #110879 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Howard and Robert E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/18/2010 5:32:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Well I think there is a problem with attributing "emptiness" to a dhamma > as a positive characteristic. I have had this discussion here in some > detail in the past, so won't go into it fully. But I think this is a good > example of taking something the Buddha taught and turning it into an objective > structure, as if it is an "is" rather than an "is not." Anatta means "no > self," not "the presence of a no-self." To turn no-self or emptiness into a > positive structure that is "part of" a dhamma is awfully close to the > excesses of some Mahayana schools that have turned these absences of self or > meaning into positive mystical attributes. > > ======================================== > This is a point well made! ------------------- Is it? Or is it just a matter of words? Robert has described anatta as a "negative" or an "absence," and he has described "atta" as positive or a "presence". So what? What's in a word? Wouldn't it be just as accurate to describe anatta as a positive "presence of anatta"? And atta as a negative "absence of anatta"? Similarly, in conventional science, mass could be described as a negative "absence of masslessness" just as easily as a positive "presence of mass". It's quite straightforward, and it doesn't matter which words we use: the fact that all dhammas bear (actually contain) the anatta characteristic means there is no atta in absolute reality. The fact that all conventional elements bear (actually contain) the mass characteristic, means there is no 'masslessness' in the conventionally known world. I think the important question here is, why are Buddhist meditators playing with words in order to cast doubt on the Abhidhamma? Why is a perceived fallibility of the Abhidhamma so important to them? ------------- H: > I'm not so sure about your statement with regard to Mahayana schools reifying emptiness, though. What schools did you have in mind? Certainly not those growing out of the teachings of Nagarjuna who taught the emptiness of emptiness. In fact, in his main work he wrote something to the effect that all things are empty, but he who makes a "thing" of emptiness is hopeless. -------------- A case in point! Why was this matter so important to Nagarjuna and his followers that they were prepared to split the sangha over it? It must come down to one view being right and the other wrong, and so the two schools going two very different ways. (Until today, at least, when it has become fashionable for Theravadin monks to favour Mahayana doctrines.) What is the world coming to! :-) Ken H #110880 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:06 am Subject: Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi all The sutta that Robert K has quoted often makes an appearance but I am often confused about different understandings of Right View. It seems to me that the Right View that is spoken of by students of A.S is somewhat Ariyan, and involves the eradication of self-view from the beginning, but the definition of Right View that is almost always used in the suttas is more basic. The kind of Right View spoken of by A.S seems more like the result of enlightenment rather than a forerunner, but I can see how, for example, having a belief in rebirth could be a forerunner. (A nod to Herman, I remember some years back when I was asking about that, we agreed that for the sake of argument, we could agree that since he didn't beleive in rebirth he had "wrong view" from a technical point of view, and he said it would be fine with him if I pointed him out for that reason as one who had "wrong view." ) Could I ask for clarification of what is meant by Right View when we speak of Right View? Thanks. Metta, Phil p.s Rob E answered my question some days back in a post entitled "What does self view mean?" (#110775) but if a student of A.S could also answer, I'd appreciate it. I think getting clear on these basic questions could help... > "Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first > indication of the > rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first > indication of > wholesome states. > For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For > one of > right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right > speech, right > action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood > springs up. For > one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of > right effort, > right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, > right > concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right > knowledge > springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance > springs up. > > Anguttara Nikaya 10:121" > > robert > #110881 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:37 am Subject: Re: Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi again all I withdraw this question! I just had a look at the sutta discussed by Rob and Ken makes it clear, the great 40. Very interesting. It appeaks students of A.S have a good point, based on that sutta. But I am only interested in the "tainted" right view, it is enough for me to believe that deeds have results, I have gone through periods of not believing that in the last year or so, and those periods taught me what kind of wrong view a person like me should be interested in. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > The sutta that Robert K has quoted often makes an appearance but I am often confused about different understandings of Right View. #110882 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:26 pm Subject: The 3 Sufferings! bhikkhu5 Friends: There are Three kinds of Suffering (Dukkha): The Blessed Buddha once explained: Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? 1: The Suffering caused by painful feeling... (dukkha-dukkha) 2: The Suffering caused by construction... (sankhara-dukkha) 3: The Suffering caused by change� (viparinama-dukkha) These are the three kinds of suffering! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of these three kinds of suffering, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind� The Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for Ending of Suffering!!! Comment: The 1st kind of suffering due to painful feeling, mental & bodily, is obvious. The 2nd suffering comes when pleasurable constructions always falls apart. The 3rd suffering is when a pleasant object inevitably changes and decays. <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:56] section 45: The Way. 165: The Sufferings ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110883 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:20 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Alex > >P:If one accumulates moments of lust (for sex, violence, whatever) >while watching those movies, can a reflectin "this is seeing, this >is visible object, this is anatta" be of any possible value? > > This is what I am concerned, accumulating more unwholesome things. Living a householder's life, accumulating more unwholesome things seems inevitable, but there is a certain basic wisdom, common sense wisdom about avoiding kinds of behaviour that will intensify that accumulation, isn't there? Studying the Buddha's teaching in nutriments makes that pretty clear. > >Isn't it just justification for accumulating harmful behaviour? > >Why don't we go all the way and turn the kung fu movie into a porn >movie. I wonder if you would go so far as to justify watching porn? >If porn is part of the path, it is good news for me, I am developing >the path. > > > Unfortunately I think that I have a bigger problem. These video clips on Youtube are violent, bloody and aggressive. I don't think that porn is as bad as this "art". I got so much kilesas... Ph: Interesting. I guess it depends on the balance of one's unwholesome roots. Maybe I have a bigger problem with lust than you do, so for me, porn is much more harmful. I can watch a violent clip and feel nothing much stirred...yes, still harmful, but I don't feel it would condition akusala kamma behaviour the way watching porn would. (For example, after watching porn, I would be ready and willing to have sex with a married woman or a woman under the protection of her parent's for example. If I go several months without watching porn or even several weeks, this would be much,much less likely.) I don't feel watching a violent video would make me more likely to do violent actions, unless it was a video involving swatting mosquitos to death, which is my last remaining form of occasional killing. So I would avoid. "Killer Skeeters and Hot Asian Chicks in Love" > The few positive things that I've learned from this: > a) Sense restraint is a must. But some here may say that it is a practice that reinforces the Self. Ph: Well, I think the Buddha uses self-image to condition sense restraint at times, for example the sutta that tells people who are on the verge of indulging wildly in sense object pleasures (the connotation in the sutta is sexual misconduct) "this is a dangerous path, a path for inferior people, not for superior people, this is not for you" or words to that effect. It is impossible to interpret that sutta as being anything but an ecouragement to have self-esteem, we need self-esteem and positive self-image to battle strong defilements and the people who don't understand that don't understand, yet, that the Buddha teaches to different people at different times, in different ways, to help understand, weaken and eventually defeat the defilements, which appear in different forms and with different strengths at different times. The Buddha's teaching is broad as well as deep, people need to understand that. > b) Since some of these clips are from 80s, checking them now and then gives additional thought about aging and impermanence. Hmm...I would be careful here. It sounds like you could justify watching them by digging Dhamma meaning out of the behaviour, that is like what I was posting, does saying "this is anatta, this is annica, this is dukkha" while watching a foxy Asian chick plant a sword in her enemy justify the accumulation of kilesas that would be happening while you watch. I don't think so. Metta, Phil p.s youtube is a cruel mistress, it's so hard to stop watching compulsively. And when we do despite our best intentions, there needn't be remorse, yes, there will be failing to control that desire, that is anatta, yes, but we can also celebrate when there is less and less watching.... #110884 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:51 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, --------- <. . .> RK: > You think scientists are superior to creationists? ---------- Yes, science is superior to creationism. ------------------- RK: Everyone of the leading creationists I know of are scientists themselves, but disagree with the current scientific worldview ------------------- They call themselves scientists - which they aren't - and they want their beliefs to be referred to as science - which it isn't. ------------------------ RK: > - which is entirely materialistic, and promoted using very high pressure propaganda targeted at children. ------------------------ Science is not propaganda, and all children should be taught science. ---------------------------------- RK: > And western science sprung out of christianity with icons like Issac Newton believing his findings showed the beauty of creation ---------------------------------- The early church tried to monopolise science, and burnt to death anyone who strayed from the fold. Not much beauty there! Ken H #110885 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:09 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again Alex > > The few positive things that I've learned from this: > > a) Sense restraint is a must. But some here may say that it is a practice that reinforces the Self. Ph: I'll just add that in SN 35, the most common treatment of sense restraint is about not going from the sign to the details. So it is not so much the sense restraint that is intentional behavior. (For example, if I walk through the sexiest area of Tokyo, Shibuya, on a day when I sense lust is very powerful, I will intentionally not look around too much, keep my eyes on the ground, that's an intentional behaviour, but the "eyes on the ground one plough's length" is not the main thrust of the Buddha's teaching on sense restraint, it is an occasional remedy or a recommendation for monks on alms rounds) So if sense restraint in the Buddha's teaching is about the way the mind goes from the perception of the sign (a woman) to the details (I will stop there) people are right in saying that it is not about an intentional action, it is about the accumulation of understanding and calm, that "wooden door vs the soft ball of clay" effect that comes from developing mindfulness in the body through meditaiton, I think. So as much as sense restraint is conditioned by meditation, yes, an intentional thing, but as for sense restraint as intentional (except in the plough's length case given above) I would say no, not intentional, but the result of following the Buddha's instructions re the development of mindfulness in the body, etc. Metta, Phil p.s I love the simile given in SN 35 about the perception of the sign vs the details. The Buddha compares the first to a crocodile grabbing its prey, and the second to the leech sucking at its source of nutriment. I think we can't stop the crocodile grabbing the prey if we are out and about in the world, but mindfulness having been established through meditation will help remove the leech faster! > > Ph: Well, I think the Buddha uses self-image to condition sense restraint at times, for example the sutta that tells people who are on the verge of indulging wildly in sense object pleasures (the connotation in the sutta is sexual misconduct) "this is a dangerous path, a path for inferior people, not for superior people, this is not for you" or words to that effect. #110886 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:38 am Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) philofillet Hi Rob Thanks for helping to clarify vedana and feeling, glad to hear that I was not the only one who gets confused about that. > While it is impossible to cut off vedana, which arises automatically at contact, it is possible to cut off these further proliferations, and that could be called "cutting off at a feeling." My understanding is that this is what takes place for an arahant - that they still experience vedana, but not proliferations. Ph: And I guess it could be said that more and more often and more and more sooner there is a cutting off of proliferation for us, "don't go there!" is a commons sense advice, we "go there" less often and for a shorter time/shallower degree as a result of understanding Dhamma better and being conditioned by it better, if you will. I'll write more to Sarah one of these days in response to her very helpful post, which I printed out. > I think what you said about it made perfect sense - you basically said the same thing - but since you were uncertain about it I thought I'd give my understanding of it, and express it in a more convoluted way. Thanks, Metta, Phil #110887 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:40 am Subject: Re: conditions for wisdom kenhowardau Hi Alex, --------- <. . .> A: > This is the thing, the scientists do not practice, unlike Buddhist meditators. Scientists often just study the theory and sometimes run experiments. Sure they may talk about how at quantum level there is this energy and no solid particles, but do they act on that knowledge? Do they behave in line with anatta and"ultimately no conceptual objects". --------- Let's forget science. That topic was a distraction; if we can't agree on how Dhamma students can practise right understanding, we certainly can't agree on how scientists could do it. ------------------ KH: > > No, there are no conventional actions to be done. >> A: > Are there conventional actions (such as killing parents, killing Arahants, wounding the Buddha, creating schism in sangha) to be avoided? ------------------ Yes, they are to be avoided, but how? The Dhamma says there is no control in the absolute sense. Therefore, it is imperative that we understand how the killing of parents etc can be avoided. If we insist on ignoring the Dhamma, and we persist instead in believing in control, then the time will come (in this life or in another) when we commit all of those horrible crimes. That's the nature of samsara, "to every thing there is a season." -------------------- KH: > >The path is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa, >whichever nama or rupa it happens to be. >> A: > Even watching HK Kung-Fu movies with hot Asian girls violently and aggressively kicking and punching the crap out of each other in the fight to the death, could be part of the path? -------------------- There is no need to be silly. Neither those concepts nor any other concepts can be a part of the path. The path is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa. If lust (lobha) or hate (dosa) has presently arisen, then it can be the object of satipatthana. The Satipatthana Sutta says that explicitly. You might not like that way of understanding, Alex, but there is no need to parody it by saying it requires us to watch sex-and-violence films. It doesn't. It doesn't require us to *do* anything. ------------ A: > How should one develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa at that time? Can that time be as good as any other occasion to develop right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa? That would be awesome if it were part of the path... ------------- It wouldn't be awesome, it would be horrible. The path is to have right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa. If you have the idea of waiting for another time - and another dhamma - then you haven't understood ultimate reality. There is only the present moment. Ken H #110888 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:31 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi Nina and RobE, Thanks for your further replies. > RobE: As for it being kusala or akusala, my answer is probably not satisfying, but to me it is very basic. One knows pretty quickly if there is tension, doubt, restlessness, etc., other hindrances arising, because when sitting and following breath, anything like this that comes up is highlighted. These akusala arisings can be noted as such, and at other times, kusala comes in the form of ease, concentration, awareness of sensations or characteristics, etc. If one becomes attached to pleasant feeling, after a while this will lead to either restlessness or feelings of clinging. As awareness becomes more subtle, these sorts of things become apparent too, so I think that there is an increasing capacity to tell kusala from akusala and even more subtle forms of akusala as one progresses. Nothing's perfect, but I do think it is a viable path. pt: Yes, that's sort of what my working hypothesis is like as well, though, as I think Nina mentioned recently, confidence (in one's own understanding of these things) is bound to be shaky all the way up to insight stages. I just find it perplexing that such fundamental differences like those between kusala and akusala can't be explained more clearly and precisely so that it would be a little more obvious in practical terms. Best wishes pt #110889 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:37 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting philofillet Hi PT >I just find it perplexing that such fundamental differences like those between kusala and akusala can't be explained more clearly and precisely so that it would be a little more obvious in practical terms. Wouldn't you say the 10 kusala kamma patha and the 10 akusala kamma patha are explained very, very explicitly? Maybe if we want practical terms out of the deep teachings about lobha being involved in what we think are good deeds etc, we are going too deep and won't find a practical application of the teaching? Metta, Phil #110890 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:39 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi RobE and KenH, > > KH: >> A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. > > >> > > > > RE: > That is not directing and controlling dhammas. It is simply taking a look at what is there, which is what you advocate anyway, just in a different setting. > > ----- > > > > "Taking a look" - call it what you like, it is still something you think you can *do*. > ... > In any case whether you call it *doing* or *happening* it is not "trying to exercise control over dhammas" so your statement was inaccurate, plain and simple. pt: In my experience, KenH is right. Whenever I decide to meditate, it's mostly because I want to get something - more sati, panna, calm, whatever, which is in essence nothing else but trying to control dhammas. There's a hope though that during the actual meditation, this particular want will fall away, and a moment of clarity can arise with awareness of present moment, and so, free of want for something else. But this might be a fools hope... Best wishes pt #110891 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:51 am Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > > > ...For example as > > > is often seen expressed, the idea that Jhana is a part of the Path > > > > Rob: Yes, Buddha expressed this a number of times. > > > S: The development of samatha leading to Jhana involves knowing the harm of "attachment", particularly to sense objects. This understanding is possible outside of the Buddha's sasana. The Noble Eightfold Path on the other hand, being the Fourth Noble Truth is what the Buddha was enlightened to and proclaimed as being the "one and only path" to enlightenment. Unlike samatha / Jhana panna, wisdom of this kind is aimed at eradicating "ignorance". This latter would make the `nature of conditioned realities' it's field of study and obviously include Jhana citta. > > Jhana development is surely worthy of admiration and therefore the Buddha would at some point make this clear, however since the 8FP is aimed at understanding paramattha dhammas, another reason for Jhana being mentioned so often was because at those times the Buddha was in fact urging his audience to understand Jhana citta and all its components as being conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > In other words, the development of satipatthana overrides any need to develop kusala of other kinds including Jhana. Besides, while Jhana is limited to seeing harm in attachment to sense objects, vipassana panna knows attachment to being and becoming and leads thence to the end of samsara. > > To put all this differently, while Jhana sees danger in a certain aspect of conditioned realities and aims to overcome it, it does not know any of this as being just that, namely a `conditioned reality' and therefore ends up merely "suppressing". On the other hand vipassana panna whose object is the nature of conditioned dhammas is aimed therefore at "eradicating" ignorance. My understanding is that they work together. The jhanas suppress defilements so that vipassana can arise. Jhana is not just the object of insight but the ideal setting for it as well, if one has been trained in detachment. > ========= > > or > > > that that the path starts with developing sila, through the practice of > > > concentration and then only is Right Understanding possible. > > > > > > While those outside of the Buddha's Dhamma are able to develop samatha > > > to the level of Jhana attainments, Buddhists today are not only mistaken > > > about the 8FP but also what samatha is and how it is developed. > > > > Rob: How do you know they are wrong? Is it a matter of faith on your part? > > > S: The saddha would more or less be in direct proportion to the level of right understanding which I can't claim to have much of. In any case, you'd understand from what I've written above why I say what I say. But I'll add that, given that samatha development starts with knowing the difference between kusala and akusala in daily life, and why is that? Does one really have to *start* with clear discernment between kusala and akusala for samatha to develop? How do you define samatha? > talk about trying to develop Jhana with no indication of any interest in the former, seems like `ambition' lead by an ideal. This is not knowing oneself / being in touch with reality. Well certainly no one said there was "no interest" in kusala. But I don't see "kusala" as a separate understanding from that which *is* kusala. > And with regard to the development of the 8FP, this in fact begins with pariyatti without which patipatti can't arise. Why is that? What if someone has an experience of correct practice before understanding is full developed and that experience actually increases the understanding. This idea that pariyatti and knowledge of discerning what is kusala must be complete before anything else can develop is very formulaic. > The apparent overlooking of the need for continued development through listening and discussing and instead jumping on to a self-projected idea about `practice' is clear indication therefore, of lack of that very basic level of understanding needed as a starting point. Well that's one way of looking at it. I've spent more time discussing Dhamma than I have meditating at this point, and I'm not going to wait until I'm dead before I "practice." Sorry about that, but your projections as to what this means are incorrect. > Given the above it should now be clear why I consider most Buddhists today to be quite confused. ;-) I think it's a strange standpoint to take. First you attribute all sors of ignorance, false motives and self-view to a bunch of people you have never met, and then you conclude that your understanding is quite superior. I think that's not only self-congratulatory but sloppy thinking, and seems to have quite a bit of self-view in that presumption. Question: Why is everyone so busy criticizing others and thinking themselves correct and superior instead of examining their own assumptions and ignorant attachments? > ======== > > > > Now as to the question directly: > > > "whether intentional activities directed towards the development of > > > awareness/insight are of a different calibre (i.e., `better') than > > > practices that clearly have no connection whatsoever with the > > > development of the path". > > > > > > The question I think is, at the moment when one thinks "to do" here, > > > this must be motivated by self view, > > > > Rob: Why? Why does "doing" have to motivated by self view? Have you ever thought this through, or is it just a token of your chosen philosophy? > > S: Well `thinking through' is not necessarily a virtue as much attachment is likely involved, worse when wrong view ends up being encouraged. And what if none of that is taking place? You are making all of that up in order to give yourself a scenario in which your understanding is superior again. Great. > Why I conclude that `self view' must necessarily be involved in any thought to meditate or even in `trying to do good' for example? > > The imperative for any student of the Dhamma is to understand that there are at any given moment only paramattha dhammas. I think the imperative is to understand what is actually taking place, rather than understand an abstract point. At any given moment we are incapable of understanding paramatha dhammas because it is only known as a concept. What we can know is what we actually see and experience, not this abstract theory. Why not look into what is there and see that it is anicca, anatta and dukkha? That is superior to conceptualizing about "paramatha dhammas," cittas and cetasikas all day long while living in a cloud of ignorance and not even looking at what is in front of one's own face. > Not only this, but also that one citta arises at a time to experience one object and this too, fallen away already. In other words, the object of Right Understanding is always the present moment which is accompanied by a corresponding level of detachment to the idea of self and control. After all why would that which sees the present moment as being conditioned already, intend then to be involved in certain activities in the future aimed at this very kind of understanding? I'm interested in engaging in path activities now, not in the future, and doing so is its own reward. You are the one who is busy conceptualizing all day long about dhammas that you can't actually experience, while I am practicing and looking at what I can experience. We should practice the path from what we do experience, not from what we should or would experience if we were arahants, which we are not. A conceptual framework is useless in awakening. What is important is to look at your present level of understanding and see that your body is anicca, getting older, can't hold onto it. That your friends will all be gone when you die, and that it is better to let go, etc. When you are confronted with real life events, as are sometimes discussed here, that is much more real than spinning on about paramatha dhammas all day long. Sometimes it seems that a parrot would have just as strong pariyatti if he could just master the vocabulary. > The idea of self is intimately tied to the idea of control. Yes, and there's no lack of self-view anywhere, including here among the conceptualists. > In this regard the average Buddhist, those who believe in `doings' is no different from those who believe in God. Or those who believe in little tiny dhammas that they can't see; or those that believe in Tinkerbell. > The theist can't help attributing `control' to God, since he can't find any other explanation seeing that the mechanism *must* exist somewhere. He does not understand conditionality where `self' has no place, and would therefore not even want to hear about such a thing. The meditator is in a similar position, since he does not want to acknowledge that this very moment there are only conditioned realities rising and falling away beyond control, and instead gets caught up in the idea of a `self' moving in time. That is nonsense. The meditator does not have a greater idea of self moving through time than you do. We're all in the same boat, but you are dreaming about a world where it is not so for you, just for everyone else. Poor meditators! They actually experience their experience instead of just thinking about it and categorizing it theoretically. A shame! > He thinks in terms of future results coming from what he does now or will do later. No he does not. He meditates because it is his path, and it is very good when he does. It is kusala in a tangible and concrete way. There is no thought of the future but only the experience of now. But you can make up whatever negative story about your abstract meditator that you like, since it is your own vain thought-creation. Don't you realize how arrogant it is to think you know something about another person's practice who you have not even spoken to? It's a fairy tale you tell yourself to feel good about your own self-view and expectations of your own path. > But there is no one to receive any fruits, so why are such ideas necessitated? The answer is, "self view". You have made up the story that they are necessitated! They are not! > ========= > > and could this be right? It would > > > seem that this is not only not knowing the Path but mistaking what is > > > wrong practice for right. This must then necessarily be followed by > > > 'illusions of result' which then becomes an object of clinging and more > > > wrong understanding with regard to what is and what is not the correct > > > Path. > > > > Rob: What if you have an illusion of result based on your own chosen idea of "right understanding" of Dhamma as you define it? > > S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion of result. And it will, and does, very close to home... > However this will not be due to what you state as "my chosen idea of right understanding", being that it is one which demands attention to what the reality is "now". No it doesn't. It demands non-stop conceptualizing. K. Sujin has said in a number of quotes to stop paying so much attention to terminology and the terms like nama and rupa and experience the realities themselves instead. Have you ever tried that? Most prefer to spin on, playing with their vocabulary and concepts. Nama rupa, nama rupa. They are pleasant familiar sounds and half the time are just pleasant music, lullabyes to those who have become accustomed to hearing those sounds and "being right" about everything. > ========= > Rob: > What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? > > S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this interfere with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive is that it is the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. Of course you perceive that! You are looking through glasses that tell you "you are right." When have you challenged your view and really examined it critically? Never? > ======== > Rob: > Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is correct? > > S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking now for example, are real? Well one needs to look and see if they know what that means, not just say the words. > What more do you need in order to be convinced that there is only ever the present moment which can be known hence needed to be object of Right Understanding? Have you ever seen the present moment as it actually is, or is it just a concept? If the latter, what makes you think you know what you are talking about? > ======== > Rob: > What if your view of right understanding is itself "wrong understanding?" How would you eve find out? Wouldn't you be trapped in a downward spiral of one akusala thought generating another, even though you are convinced you are right? Couldn't you be trapped in false concepts? > > S: A good way of describing the mechanism. ;-) > But do you see any way out of this predicament other than careful study and engaging in discussions with wise friends? Yes, those who meditate have a much more focused experience of realities rising and falling than those who talk all day and never stop talking to just look at realities. Without direct looking there will never be direct seeing. Pariyatti will never convert to direct seeing because it will always remain a concept, unless it is applied through practice. It's a pipe dream to think that conceptual clarity will ever create conditions by itself for direct seeing. And one will go from lifetime to lifetime lost in thought, never seeing a single reality in front of them. Meditation is merely stopping the chatter after having some understanding and taking a good quite look at what is in front of one's nose; or perhaps even a bit closer. > ======== > > > Any good it would seem, must depend entirely on some Right View > > > accumulated in previous lives to condition a moment of understanding > > > "now" manifested then as being in spite of the wrong view held so far. > > > And when this happens would one then still insist on the kind of > > > intentional practice? > > > > Rob: Well, I think we have to pray that our view of Right View is correct. Because if it is wrong and we keep clinging to it, and using it to measure our own and others practice, we may wind up in a much worse place next lifetime. > > S: Doubt will arise as long as we are not Sotapanna yet. But doubt is just another conditioned reality which when known incites a level of confidence one which is quite opposed to the idea suggested by you of "praying that our right view is correct". ;-) At this point we had better pray, because the situation seems almost hopeless. The air is so thick with spiritual concepts that the truth cannot even breathe. > ======= > Rob: > What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as Right View? It must not be pretty. > > S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I can't accept. ;-) There is bad doubt and there is good doubt. Good doubt is when you realize that you are spinning your wheels and you open your eyes and take a look at what is really in front of your face. False view should be doubted. But if you don't examine your own views you will never see them for what they are. That goes for me, you and everyone. Instead of blind certainty in our own ignorance, we should investigate further and not shut our ears to any form of intelligence, not just those who already agree with us. When you open your eyes, you don't see "dhammas," you see objects, bodies, familiar things that you are attached to. Instead of going back to concepts, see your own attachment and clinging and start to discern that with sati so that there is some chance to let go. That is the path, not thinking and spouting and convincing yourself you are right all day, lost in your head and your spiritual version of self-view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110892 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. ptaus1 Hi Herman, Phil, Alex, Jon, Sarah, KenH, > Herman: At Manly, there was a discussion about whether or not a developing insight / > understanding of reality modifies behaviour. I hope I am not misrepresenting > anyone, but I think Jon was a definite no, pt a maybe, and I a definite yes. > I guess, whether we actually believe what we say we understand only becomes > apparent when unwanted events come our way, not when everything goes > according to plan. pt: Thanks for reminding me about this, it was an interesting topic. I think that the confusion is that the topic had two aspects: 1. dealing with eradication of anusayas at the moment of enlightenment (stream-entry to arahat), which is the only thing that permanently modifies behavior in terms of committing akusala. 2. dealing with outward behavior - in the sense that developed understanding will start underlying all actions, no matter how trivial they seem from outside (e.g. driving, washing dishes, etc), so there would be no apparent change in the outward behavior - e.g. we would still eat, wash dishes, drive, etc, even when understanding develops. I think this is the point that Sarah was trying to make, while Herman and me focused more on the other issue of of whether akusala is diminished or not with more progress on the path. I think this issue of non/diminishing akusala goes back to what is actually eradicated at the moment of enlightenment. The answer is that it's the anusayas - latent tendencies, which are eradicated. Therefore, as long as they are not eradicated, they can condition arising of akusala factors in the future. That would in turn mean that as long as understanding hasn't developed sufficiently, there's no permanent modification of behavior so to speak in terms of committing/eradicating akusala. As I understood Jon, developing samatha, metta and even understanding at levels below enlightenment certainly helps in two ways: - it suppresses the arising of akusala in the very moment that kusala arises, and hence "no fuel is added to the fire" - i.e. akusala is not reinforced - in moments of kusala, kusala is reinforced, what should at some point culminate in enlightenment. However, as long as latent tendencies are not eradicated, they can condition akusala, in this life or the next, what would then condition more akusala, etc. I think that was why it seemed logical to conclude that behavior is not permanently modified (i.e. the possibility of akusala is not completely eradicated) until the moment of enlightenment (Nina recently wrote exactly what latent tendency is eradicated at a particular supramundane path moment). Best wishes pt #110893 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:10 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Phil: Wouldn't you say the 10 kusala kamma patha and the 10 akusala kamma patha are explained very, very explicitly? pt: Yes, you are right. Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to kusala and akusala relating to breath as object. It seems like such an important issue, since most meditators tend to use breath as the object. Best wishes pt #110894 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:48 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > ------------------- > RK: Everyone of the leading creationists I know of are scientists themselves, but disagree with the current scientific worldview > ------------------- > > They call themselves scientists - which they aren't - and they want their beliefs to be referred to as science - which it isn't. > > ------------------------ > > > The early church tried to monopolise science, and burnt to death anyone who strayed from the fold. Not much beauty there! ____________ Dear Kenh I don't think scientists like Newton- a very devout believer in creation are inferior to any modern scientists who are materialists. Do you have some names of scientists who were burnt by the church? The current christian scientists don't object to science per se, or to scientific evidence, what they claim is that the scientific picture of the world is itself a worldview and that science educators mix in certain undisputed evidence with worldviews and claim that it is all proven science. These Christian scientists don't dispute evolution has occured in various ways, what they question is the current highly extropolated belief among evolution scientists. In fact evolution scientists would be just as sceptical and scathing about Buddhist views if any buddhist started challenging their beliefs in the way Christians have. I wrote to Herman once: You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after deathEut would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). He finds it "odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function" (p.37). However, Batchelors reliance on science for answers about what happens after death etc. has its own problems. Scientists, despite their metaphysically neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was a chance occurence. The big bang occured (no one knows why or what were the conditions ) and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter came together to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form amino acids. These then formed complex proteins, which later formed DNA, and then somehow by some amazing set of chance occurences, bacteria. Life all arose out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why? Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, pp.344-345). Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). Now obviously these beliefs are very much at odds with Dhamma - and yet propageted extensively in science education-so I wonder why you would privilege them over Christain views? robert #110895 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting philofillet Hi Pt I see, sorry, that's my fault for jumping in at random on threads without following them. Metta, Phil > > Phil: Wouldn't you say the 10 kusala kamma patha and the 10 akusala kamma patha are explained very, very explicitly? > > pt: Yes, you are right. Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to kusala and akusala relating to breath as object. It seems like such an important issue, since most meditators tend to use breath as the object. #110896 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? nilovg Dear Philip, Op 20-okt-2010, om 2:06 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Could I ask for clarification of what is meant by Right View when > we speak of Right View? ------- N: Although you withdrew this question, I think I can still add something. It is pa~n~naa cetasika and, it has many degrees. First it is understanding of the level of listening to the Dhamma and considering. Then it can develop through mindfulness of characteristics of realities that appear, and further through different stages of insight up to pa~n~naa that becomes lokuttara and experiences nibbaana. It is a gradual process. Patience and perseverance are needed. Nina. #110897 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting nilovg Dear pt, Op 20-okt-2010, om 6:31 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > I just find it perplexing that such fundamental differences like > those between kusala and akusala can't be explained more clearly > and precisely so that it would be a little more obvious in > practical terms. ------- N: The Abhidhamma and the commentaries explain in detail about the kusala cittas and akusala cittas and the different cetasikas that accompany them. I found the Visuddhimagga Ch XIV study with its Tiika I made with Larry most helpful. It is by no means theoretical. It has to sink in. We may forget all the details, but it still helps as a foundation knowledge. We come to understand more that whatever citta arises is a conditioned dhamma. Sure, we cannot catch akusala citta and kusala citta, they arise and fall away immediately. Why should we try, it is pa~n~naa that gradually develops that can know their different characteristics. Nina. #110898 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:13 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---------- <. . .> RK: > I don't think scientists like Newton- a very devout believer in creation are inferior to any modern scientists who are materialists. ---------- In his day, Newton was a modern scientist. I think his attitude was quite brave and revolutionary at the time. --------------- RK: > Do you have some names of scientists who were burnt by the church? --------------- Not actually on me. :-) But I am surprised you would doubt there were any. After a quick Google I have found this quote that sums up what I would have thought was common knowledge: ". . . Being proven wrong on any count therefore had disastrous implications for the Church, not only because it undermined its authority, but its political and economic power as well. Not surprisingly, the Church moved energetically against scholars attempting to make scientific progress, branding their work as "heresy" and persecuting them to the fullest extent that they could. The full range of the Church's actions included harassment, discrimination, censorship, slander, scorn, abuse, threats, persecution, forced recantations, torture and burning at the stake. The list of great scientists opposed by the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. At no time has the Church been on the cutting edge of science -- it has opposed virtually all scientific progress for nearly 2,000 years. And Protestants would prove to be just as hostile to science as Catholics." ------------------ RK: > The current christian scientists don't object to science per se, or to scientific evidence, what they claim is that the scientific picture of the world is itself a worldview and that science educators mix in certain undisputed evidence with worldviews and claim that it is all proven science. These Christian scientists don't dispute evolution has occured in various ways, what they question is the current highly extropolated belief among evolution scientists. ------------------ I don't know which Christian scientists you are referring to. I hope it is not the purveyors of Creationism and Intelligent Design, who are currently undermining education systems of America. Those people deserve no credibility whatsoever. --------------------------- RK: > In fact evolution scientists would be just as sceptical and scathing about Buddhist views if any buddhist started challenging their beliefs in the way Christians have. --------------------------- I would advise all Buddhists to keep science and absolute reality in two very separate baskets. Treat them both with the respect they deserve *in their own fields*. ---------------------------- RK: > I wrote to Herman once: > You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death? But would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). <. . .> > Now obviously these beliefs are very much at odds with Dhamma - and yet propageted extensively in science education-so I wonder why you would privilege them over Christain views? --------------- Regarding: "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death?" what do you understand by "we" in that context, Robert? Do you take it to mean sentient beings, or do you take it to mean the five khandhas? If it is the former, then you should be guided by science. If it is the latter, you should be guided by the Dhamma. Ken H #110899 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi Nina Thank you for this > It is pa~n~naa cetasika and, it has many degrees. First it is > understanding of the level of listening to the Dhamma and > considering. Then it can develop through mindfulness of > characteristics of realities that appear, and further through > different stages of insight up to pa~n~naa that becomes lokuttara and > experiences nibbaana. Hmm. This is still difficult for me to grasp. It seems to me that at it's most basic level, right view is about the conceptual content of one's thinking. I think that there will be results to my bad deeds, so I avoid doing them. OK, I guess we can say that that is the function of the cetasika panna, but...oh, I don't know Nina! It's beyond me. In any case, I learned from a quick look at the Great Forty sutta that there is supramundane right view, and right view "with taints." I am happy to have right view "with taints", supramundane right view "that is a factor of the path" is of only theoretical interest to me. But it sometimes feel when I hear you and others that you want people to have supramundane right view, that you are promoting supramundane right view. If someone tells me that I don't understand Dhamma because I fail to keep in mind that there is only one fleeting moment, only nama and rupa that rises for a moment and falls away, what is that person doing but telling me to have supramundane right view. I don't want to have supramundane right view Nina! I wanna be a good person who avoids hurting other people! I think that that is a wonderfully sufficient way to fulfill the blessing of having encountered the Buddha's teaching. What should I say to those people that say this is a failure to understand Dhamma? Help! Metta, Phil #110900 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. philofillet Hi Pt and all > However, as long as latent tendencies are not eradicated, they can condition akusala, in this life or the next, what would then condition more akusala, etc. I think that was why it seemed logical to conclude that behavior is not permanently modified (i.e. the possibility of akusala is not completely eradicated) Ph: OK, "the possibily of akusala is not completely eradicated", fine. But the idea that behaviour isn't modified by exposure to, reflection on, and increased understanding of the Dhamma is peculiar to me. The cockroaches that I haven't killed are still parading through the world as evidence to that! *All* Buddhists surely move in the direction of keeping the precepts, and that is of course modification of behaviour. I remember talking about this sort of thing in past years with Jon and Sarah and others, their insistence on the fact that the latent tendencies remain. Of course the latent tendencies remain. This doesn't trump the fact that particular harmful actions are occuring dramatically less often. It's like they're saying that although over the years smoking has led to toxins being accumulated in the body in a way that may condition the growth of cancerous tumous, there is no point in stopping smoking because the latent tendency to cancer remains, or something like that. I don't know if that's a good analogy but I'm enormously grateful that I still place a lot of value on trying to stop doing the things that the Buddha strongly urged us to stop doing, starting with killing, lying, stealing, using intoxicants and having wrong sex. If I were to make a bar chart showing the incidence of such behaviour, it would show a lovely downward trend, I am certain of that. And that is a modification of behaviour that came because of Dhamma. Ask the cockroaches! Metta, Phil #110901 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/19/2010 7:49:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Is it? Or is it just a matter of words? Robert has described anatta as a "negative" or an "absence," and he has described "atta" as positive or a "presence". So what? What's in a word? Wouldn't it be just as accurate to describe anatta as a positive "presence of anatta"? And atta as a negative "absence of anatta"? ------------------------------------------------------ If there is nothing to words, then why speak or write? :-) Yes, there is a difference. The term anatta is a denial. It is definitely not the opposite. Of two opposites, I agree that frequently either could be taken as a positive, but often that is not so. This is a case in which, IMO, it is not so. ------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, in conventional science, mass could be described as a negative "absence of masslessness" just as easily as a positive "presence of mass". It's quite straightforward, and it doesn't matter which words we use: the fact that all dhammas bear (actually contain) the anatta characteristic means there is no atta in absolute reality. The fact that all conventional elements bear (actually contain) the mass characteristic, means there is no 'masslessness' in the conventionally known world. I think the important question here is, why are Buddhist meditators playing with words in order to cast doubt on the Abhidhamma? Why is a perceived fallibility of the Abhidhamma so important to them? -------------------------------------------------------- I'm not getting into any of that. I'm merely asserting that anatta is a clear negative. --------------------------------------------------------- ------------- H: > I'm not so sure about your statement with regard to Mahayana schools reifying emptiness, though. What schools did you have in mind? Certainly not those growing out of the teachings of Nagarjuna who taught the emptiness of emptiness. In fact, in his main work he wrote something to the effect that all things are empty, but he who makes a "thing" of emptiness is hopeless. -------------- A case in point! Why was this matter so important to Nagarjuna and his followers that they were prepared to split the sangha over it? --------------------------------------------------------- As I see it, Nagarjuna was reacting to a substantialist heresy of his time. -------------------------------------------------------- It must come down to one view being right and the other wrong, and so the two schools going two very different ways. (Until today, at least, when it has become fashionable for Theravadin monks to favour Mahayana doctrines.) ------------------------------------------------------- ??? ------------------------------------------------------ What is the world coming to! :-) -------------------------------------------------------- God knows! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ Ken H =========================== With metta,] Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110902 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > ["Ken H" wrote:] > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > ------------------------- > dear Robert > > The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. > Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... > > ""When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, > alert with keen ears, > attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of vital > importance, directing > his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental Hindrances > are absent in him. > On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards > complete fulfilment...>endquote > > complete Fulfilment coincides with nibbana That's a good quote. Thank you for that! Although it doesn't say that this is the only way, it does say that with the right kind of total attention and understanding, listening to and considering the Dhamma can lead to completion of the path. What do you think constitutes "directing his entire mind to it?" Is there a more precise definition of this in Abhidhamma or commentary? Thanks. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110903 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:35 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > > ------------------------- > dear Robert > Sangitti sutta > > The vimuttayatanam > > The 5 bases of deliverance: > XXV. "Five bases of deliverance; here > the teacher or a respected fellow disciple teaches a monk Dhamma. > And as he receives the teaching, he gains a grasp of both the spirit > and the letter of the teaching. At this, joy arises in him, and from > this joy, delight; and by this delight his senses are calmed, he > feels happiness as a result, and with this happiness his mind is > established [he attains nibbana];" > Robert That is also a very neat quote - that must be quite a sharp monk, don't you think? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110904 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? nilovg Dear Phil and pt, Op 20-okt-2010, om 12:25 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > It seems to me that at it's most basic level, right view is about > the conceptual content of one's thinking. I think that there will > be results to my bad deeds, so I avoid doing them. OK, I guess we > can say that that is the function of the cetasika panna, but...oh, > I don't know Nina! It's beyond me. ----- N: I am not yet thinking of supramundane right view, it is still far away. It is not so difficult to understand that right understanding or pa~n~naa is a cetasika. it means that it arises because of conditions and that it is not my right view or right understanding. You and pt. came into contact with the Buddha's teachings and this is the condition for not killing cockroaches. You have some understanding of kamma that brings result. This understanding can become deeper and deeper, and at the first stage of insight it is more clearly known what kamma is, what vipaaka is. > ------- Ph: > But it sometimes feel when I hear you and others that you want > people to have supramundane right view, that you are promoting > supramundane right view. ------- N: No, not at all, how could I? It all depends on the growth of pa~n~naa, it develops according to its own conditions and cannot be interfered with. ------ > Ph: OK, "the possibily of akusala is not completely eradicated", fine. But the idea that behaviour isn't modified by exposure to, reflection on, and increased understanding of the Dhamma is peculiar to me. ------- N: Yes, more understanding conditions siila, also siila develops. But siila as regards the five precepts is not yet enduring for the non- ariyans. When you are in danger of life you may kill. There are still the seven latent tendencies not yet eradicated. Thus, there is always this danger present. All the same, there are conditions to live according to the precepts. ------- Nina. #110905 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > : > > > >> RE: > Gimme a quote, dude! One that actually says that. And I don't mean one that says that understanding Dhamma is the most important thing to do, but one that says that the other path factors will arise by themselves if you *only* study Dhamma. If there's a sutta that states that directly I'll be very impressed. > > > > ------------------------- > > > Dear Robert > > "Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first > indication of the > rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first > indication of > wholesome states. > For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For > one of > right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right > speech, right > action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood > springs up. For > one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of > right effort, > right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, > right > concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right > knowledge > springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance > springs up. > > Anguttara Nikaya 10:121" > > robert > This is also very good. I think there can be different views of whether this refers to instantaneous rising up of all the path factors, or whether Buddha is saying that each path factor leads to the other in a longer time frame, but it is a very good description of how the path factors form the conditions for further path factors to develop. Thanks! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110906 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:53 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Robert > > Interesting. But can't it be assumed that we are feeding a hindrance when watching those movies? Is an action undertaken with certain knowledge that it is a nutriment for a hindrance part of the path? Not being confrontational, just curious if we can all agree that there are certain conventional behaviours that are certain to be contrary to developing the path. If one accumulates moments of lust (for sex, violence, whatever) while watching those movies, can a reflectin "this is seeing, this is visible object, this is anatta" be of any possible value? Isn't it just justification for accumulating harmful behaviour? > Why don't we go all the way and turn the kung fu movie into a porn movie. I wonder if you would go so far as to justify watching porn? If porn is part of the path, it is good news for me, I am developing the path. If I can jump in, I think that there are a few separate issues and possibilities here. One is that it is probably akusala in its own right to watch porn movies or to get off on the violence in the Kung Fu movies. So let's agree that this is akusala. One should refrain from such activities. On the other hand there are two mitigating factors - one is if the mind is developed enough to "guard the senses" and not allow the akusala material to affect the mind. The three levels of how akusala experiences may be guarded against came up recently. Paraphrasing, I think from the Vism., they were: 1. Avoiding the Kung Fu movies so one is not exposed to them. 2. Watching the Kung Fu movies, but not paying attention, so that the material does not enter the senses, even though you are in the same room. 3. Watching the Kung Fu movies, and paying attention, so that the material does register with the senses, but having the mind guarded to the extent that there is no reaction to the material. In a sense, it is registering, but one is still not involved with the material at all. One remains detached. Let's say you were forced to have a business meeting at a strip club, and you didn't want to be there. You had determined to avoid such akusala experiences, but there you are. So you put your attention squarely on the business meeting, and you ignore the strippers. If you do see them, you don't "go with it" and have any enjoyment of what is taking place, you remain detached. Finally, while all the above situations may be akusala, if one sees the experience for what it is, sees that it is a series of dhammas, sees whether they are nama or rupa, sees their characteristics, such as akusala, sees that they are anatta or anicca, this seeing the reality transforms the experience in that moment, and at least for that moment, from akusala to kusala, because a detached seeing of akusala for what it is, is a moment of kusala. And I think that is the point that Rob K. was making. If you go back to attachment and defiled enjoyment, that is akusala. Then if you see the akusala experience with detachment, that is a moment of kusala again. So it makes a difference to what extent the mind is developed and how it relates to the material at hand. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110907 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:59 pm Subject: Re: Present Moment epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > Whether it is from a past life or not, there's no doubt that there are some people who are naturally a lot calmer and more centered than I am! > > I don't think it's a teaching from the suttas, but there is a commentarial teaching that we are born with a different balance of the three akusala roots and the three kusala roots. That would make sense to me. I always think it's interesting to look at one's personal balance of factors, even in a more casual way. It makes sense for one person who is already calm to focus on discernment, while someone who is jumpy and confused should probably cultivate samatha, to be simple about it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110908 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > ------- > N: Just adding to the translation of sankappa. Sankappa is vitakka > cetasika, not virati which is abstention from akusala. > The function of vitakka is to hit or strike at the object. This hitting, striking, probing action of vitakka remains one of my favorite cetasikas. :-) I have always liked this function. Sammaa > sankappa assists sammaa di.t.thi, while it hits the naama or ruupa > that is the object of awareness and right understanding, so that > sammaa di.t.thi can see it as it is. I am happy to hear about this coordinated action between the striking action of vitakka and the discernment action of samma ditthi. I am recalling additional features which I think are part of vittaka - turning the object over, beating the object - this is all part of the description of vitakka...? Is this correct? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110909 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: conditions for wisdom epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 19 October 2010 17:25, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > As I have recently understood it, a kusala understanding of akusala is just > > as valuable as a kusala understanding of kusala, so those Kung-Fu girls are > > fully eligible for contemplation of arising dhammas. Have fun! And don't > > forgot the popcorn. > > > > > Teach your children well (Crosby Stills Nash Young) This was meant as a joke, although when confronted with negative material, it is an opportunity for detachment and discernment. However, I am not getting any Kung Fu extravaganzas for my daughter, thank you very much. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110910 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: conditions for wisdom epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 19 October 2010 17:25, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > As I have recently understood it, a kusala understanding of akusala is just > > as valuable as a kusala understanding of kusala, so those Kung-Fu girls are > > fully eligible for contemplation of arising dhammas. Have fun! And don't > > forgot the popcorn. > > > > > Teach your children well (Crosby Stills Nash Young) BTW, I saw Crosby Stills and Nash [w/o Young as usual] in Western Massachussetts at the Tanglewood Festival this summer. They are aging, and their voices are not what they used to be, but were a lot of fun, and Stephen Stills can still play a mean guitar. Among our crew were my 90 year old Dad, my 83 year old mother, myself and my wife, and our 12 year old daughter, so all available generations were well represented. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110911 From: nichicon cp Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:36 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta 329 cont'd, 6.22 nichiconn ?Dear Friends, DN33 Sixes, final sutta installment: CSCD <>tiaadi vuttanayeneva yojetabba.m. Iti dvaaviisatiyaa chakkaana.m vasena baatti.msasatapa~nhe kathento thero saamaggirasa.m dassesiiti. Chakkava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. .Tiikaa Nibbedhovuccati nibbaana.m magga~naa.nena nibbijjhitabba.t.thena, pa.tivijjhitabba.t.thenaati attho. Nirodhaanupassanaa~naa.neti nirodhaanupassanaa~naa.ne nissayapaccayabhuute uppannaa sa~n~naa, tena sahagataati attho. CSCD < Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:53 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. truth_aerator Hi RobertE, RobK2, KenH, all, >RE: This is also very good. I think there can be different views of >whether this refers to instantaneous rising up of all the path >factors, or whether Buddha is saying that each path factor leads to >the other in a longer time frame, but it is a very good description >of >how the path factors form the conditions for further path >factors to >develop. Thanks! There is a teaching in Ptsm (of Sutta-Pitaka) that does say that at supramundane moment all 37 factors of awakening converge and do their functions. It is made by Citta + nana (TREATISE XXIII " ON CONVERGENCE). The issue is, how is nana (wisdom, insight) that is going to cause that, achieved? How passive or active the effort (at listening, reading and considering) should be? What is considered to be lack of effort, what is considered to be optimal effort in developing it? Why can't one actively strive without thinking that "*I* do this/that" and do with the impersonal idea that "this is kusala". With metta, Alex #110913 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:13 pm Subject: Re: memories of the late Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. szmicio Hi azita, thanx for quotations, > > I found my little book of 'scribbles' from days with Ven. Dhammadharo. The book was lost for a while, I move around too much:) > > "Each moment of right understanding gradually eliminates wrong understanding but we should understand that it takes a long, long time" - something you may not want to hear, Lukas, but I think we have to accept as it as truth. > > "if no awareness arises to experience a reality, can ther be anything else which is aware?" " No, indeed, not!" > > "Desire for results is real, it can be helpful BUT this field can also be very dangerous - it depends on the desire and why it is desiring". I guess this may mean chandha? L: I think this can mean kusala chanda, the only element that wishes for kusala in a kusala way. Other akusala chandas and lobhas are elements that take us in. But of course akusala can be an object to kusala. I think I need to hear more about that and patthana. What patthana says on akusala dhamma being object for kusala? or akusala dhamma condtioning akusala? Best wishes Lukas #110914 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Walshe DN 33.2.2(22) 'Six perceptions conducive to penetration (nibbedha- bhaagiya-sa~n~naa): the perception of impermanence, of suffering in impermanence, of impersonality in suffering, of abandoning, of dispassion (as Sutta 33, v.2.2(26)) and the perception of cessation (nirodha-sa~n~naa). --------- N: Commentary: Penetration refers to nibbaana, and to this they resort, they approach. Tiika: the meaning is: it is to be penetrated by lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying magga-citta (by magga-pa~n~naa). ---------- Commentary: As to perception of impermanence etc., this has been dealt with in the Fives. ------ N: We have to return to the Fives: DN 33.2.1(26), which is similar except that in the sutta of the Sixes nirodhasa~n~naa has been added as the sixth. Requoting with its commentaries: We read in the Fives: 'Five perceptions making for maturity of liberation: the perception of impermanence (anicca-sa~n~naa), of suffering in impermanence (anicce dukkha-sa~n~naa), of impersonality in suffering (dukkhe anatta-sa~n~naa), of abandoning (pahaana- sa~n~naa), of dispassion (viraaga-sa~n~naa). -------- Co: As to the perception of impermanence, this is sa~n~naa that has arisen with the insight that contemplates impermanence. Tiika: Sa~n~naa that has arisen when the insight that contemplates impermanence has become a supporting condition, and this means that it is associated with this insight. Co: As to the perception of suffering in impermanence, this is sa~n~naa that has arisen with the insight that contemplates dukkha. As to the perception of suffering in non-self, this is sa~n~naa that has arisen with the insight that contemplates non-self. As to the perception of abandoning (pahaana), this is sa~n~naa that has arisen with the insight that contemplates abandoning. As to the perception of dispassion, this is sa~n~naa that has arisen with the insight that contemplates dispassion (viraga). -------- N: As to nirodha-sa~n~naa, the perception of cessation, which is added in the Sixes, the Tiika adds that when the contemplation of cessation has become a support-condition (nissaya-paccaya), sa~n~naa that has arisen is associated with this contemplation. --------- Conclusion: The contemplations mentioned in this sutta are stages of principal insight. The contemplation of cessation overcomes lobha. Vipassanaa~naa.na realizes the characteristics of the realities that appear as they are. At that moment sa~n~naa remembers and does not forget the characteristic of aniccaa. When the characteristics of aniccaa, dukkha and anattaa have been thoroughly realised in the course of the development of insight, lokuttara pa~n~naa can arise which has nibbaana as the object. As we read in the commentary to the words Six perceptions conducive to penetration (nibbedha-bhaagiya-sa~n~naa), penetration refers to nibbaana, and this they resort to, approach. And as the Tiika explains: to be penetrated by lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying magga- citta (by magga-pa~n~naa). When one begins to develop satipa.t.thaana one can learn that whatever appears is only a dhamma. Seeing arises when there are the right conditions and it falls away; nobody can make it arise. It is the same with sati: it arises when there are the right conditions and nobody can make it arise. It is just a dhamma. When we remember that everything that arises is only a dhamma it will help us to understand the nature of anattaa, beyond control. Very gradually there can be understanding of what appears at this moment, be it seeing, visible object, attachment or generosity. These are just conditioned dhammas. When this understanding has become firmer it can condition the arising of direct awareness and understanding. Only when sati of the level of satipa.t.thaana arises can there be a deeper understanding of the characteristics of aniccaa, dukkha and anattaa. ------------ Nina. #110915 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 20-okt-2010, om 16:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I am recalling additional features which I think are part of > vittaka - turning the object over, beating the object - this is all > part of the description of vitakka...? Is this correct? ----- N: I answer you next week :-) Nina. #110916 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:19 pm Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/18/2010 5:32:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Well I think there is a problem with attributing "emptiness" to a dhamma > as a positive characteristic. I have had this discussion here in some > detail in the past, so won't go into it fully. But I think this is a good > example of taking something the Buddha taught and turning it into an objective > structure, as if it is an "is" rather than an "is not." Anatta means "no > self," not "the presence of a no-self." To turn no-self or emptiness into a > positive structure that is "part of" a dhamma is awfully close to the > excesses of some Mahayana schools that have turned these absences of self or > meaning into positive mystical attributes. > > ======================================== > This is a point well made! > I'm not so sure about your statement with regard to Mahayana schools > reifying emptiness, though. What schools did you have in mind? Certainly not > those growing out of the teachings of Nagarjuna who taught the emptiness > of emptiness. In fact, in his main work he wrote something to the effect > that all things are empty, but he who makes a "thing" of emptiness is hopeless. I should probably take a step back from my statement, as I can't identify a particular school that clearly reifies sunyata/sunnata. I have sometimes had the sense that some schools look at sunyata as a dimension rather than an absence, but since I can't put my finger on it or find a quote at present, I'll have to wait until I get a more specific reference. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110917 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:48 pm Subject: OBSERVATION ksheri3 The MIDDLE IS ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY TWO EXTREMES, both are POLARIZED and both are opposite of the other. Does the MIDDLE have a REFLECTION upon which to value? What about MATERIALISM? What about IDEALISM? One exists entirely on the subserviance to a patented RUPA. The other exists entirely on the subserviance to a patented NAMA. An interesting Resultant Phenomena, don't you think so? toodles, colette #110918 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) upasaka_howard OKAY! :-) In a message dated 10/20/2010 5:19:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I should probably take a step back from my statement, as I can't identify a particular school that clearly reifies sunyata/sunnata. I have sometimes had the sense that some schools look at sunyata as a dimension rather than an absence, but since I can't put my finger on it or find a quote at present, I'll have to wait until I get a more specific reference. ============================= There are some (very few) Zen schools that speak of "big self"! (So you could be right.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110919 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Thanks Rob E, On 19 October 2010 00:57, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > Some most excellent points, quite out of frame from what we normally think > about. > > > > Sunnata and anatta are, IMO, relationships between things, not things in > > themselves. One cannot see that a glass is empty, one has to think it. > The > > glass in itself is only what it is, it's emptiness consists of the > > difference between what is thought, and what is. Globally, that > translates > > into sunnata being the difference between what is sensed, and what is > > thought. > > This is all very well put. And very pretty too. I will try to extrapolate > from and summarize and probably subvert what you are saying at the same > time: It seems that the realization of anatta and the realization of sunnata > are both in relation to the expectations that our minds are born into - to > want to be someone and to acquire satisfying experiences for that someone. > Exactly. > The experience of anatta is that this someone is absent, so when we have > experiences there is no one home to enjoy them. Not recognizing this leads > to more craving, and thus a craving that cannot be fulfilled. When we > realize there is no one home to receive the gift, that is when anatta is > realized and craving stops. > You have understood me well; but I personally do not conclude that anatta necessarily leads to the cessation of craving. Anatta is not a solution to suffering, it is part of the problem. To the extent that there is craving for being [something] , that craving is always going to be thwarted, because there is nothing that can make itself be [something]. And the living body simply IS a mass of cravings; that cannot change without death resulting. Take the breath, for example. Hold it in, hold it in, hold it in some more. What is now starting to be experienced is craving in action. That fundamental craving, or the threat of it if it is not constantly being sated, stays unaltered by any or all understanding. > When we realize that the object we are experiencing is just an experience > and not really that object, that it doesn't have the value we perceive in it > and that it has no relation to us which we would like it to have, that is > realization of sunnata - it is empty of any value that we would like to > acquire. Not realizing this leads to continued clinging and craving, wanting > to acquire and hold onto pleasant objects to satisfy ourselves. Realizing > that the object is not what we think it is and never will be, leads to > letting go. > Yes, I agree that an understanding of the emptiness of experience can lead to a devaluing of experience(s), and that certainly will result in a diminishing of suffering. > > So perhaps anatta is the subjective pole of emptiness, and sunnata is the > objective pole. > > Or, could it be just the other way around? If atta was a reality, then we could make ourselves be whatever. But that is objectively not the case. But the value accorded to different experiences is not universal, and can change over time, and that would make subjective. What do you think? Cheers Herman #110920 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OBSERVATION egberdina Hi colette, On 21 October 2010 06:48, colette wrote: > > > The MIDDLE IS ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY TWO EXTREMES, both are POLARIZED and > both are opposite of the other. Does the MIDDLE have a REFLECTION upon which > to value? What about MATERIALISM? What about IDEALISM? One exists entirely > on the subserviance to a patented RUPA. The other exists entirely on the > subserviance to a patented NAMA. > > An interesting Resultant Phenomena, don't you think so? > > Indeed, indeed. Cheers Herman #110921 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] practice. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: Studying dhamma now is the practice. We learn that whatever arises > is conditioned. Thinking about all these things you mention is also > conditioned, it is only a dhamma, not your thinking or my thinking. > This truly helps not to attach too much importance to thoughts, > definitions, words we write, to wondering: is it this way or that way. I think you have good reminders here, about everything taking place in the moment and about recognizing what is happening now. Even meditation happens "now," not at some other time. I just wish, that being the case, that people would stop thinking that meditation can take place at the "wrong" time and is the "wrong" practice, and let the meditaters meditate "now." :) > BTW I am taking a break for the long weekend. I hope you have a very nice weekend Nina! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110922 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Robert E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > In a message dated 10/18/2010 5:32:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > epsteinrob@ writes: > > > > Well I think there is a problem with attributing "emptiness" to a dhamma > > as a positive characteristic. I have had this discussion here in some > > detail in the past, so won't go into it fully. But I think this is a good > > example of taking something the Buddha taught and turning it into an objective > > structure, as if it is an "is" rather than an "is not." Anatta means "no > > self," not "the presence of a no-self." To turn no-self or emptiness into a > > positive structure that is "part of" a dhamma is awfully close to the > > excesses of some Mahayana schools that have turned these absences of self or > > meaning into positive mystical attributes. > > > > ======================================== > > This is a point well made! > ------------------- > > Is it? Or is it just a matter of words? Robert has described anatta as a "negative" or an "absence," and he has described "atta" as positive or a "presence". So what? What's in a word? Wouldn't it be just as accurate to describe anatta as a positive "presence of anatta"? And atta as a negative "absence of anatta"? > > Similarly, in conventional science, mass could be described as a negative "absence of masslessness" just as easily as a positive "presence of mass". I'm sorry, but this is a truly ridiculous statement. "Masslessness" does not exist any more than "the absence of a self" is a thing. They are concepts or observations, not "actualities." You don't say that Person X's absence from dinner creates a positive presence called "X-lessness." The understanding that Person X is not there is a concept, not a reality. Anatta doesn't have a shape, color or smell. It is a concept or a negative observation that something we thought was there turns out to not be real. So we observe with some astonishment that there is no self to people or things. But there is no "anatta-thing" that is *on* a dhamma. It's an observation. I have challenged you in the past to tell me what an "anatta" would look like as a positive characteristic, but all you can say is "it's the characteristic of anatta" because there is no thing that is an anatta. It is a conceptual understanding that there is no self. There is not a "no-self" anywhere in the world, including stuck onto dhammas. When it is said that "anatta is a characteristic" of dhammas, it is a figure of speech. It is more accurate to say "no dhamma has an atta or is part of an atta." > It's quite straightforward, and it doesn't matter which words we use: the fact that all dhammas bear (actually contain) the anatta characteristic means there is no atta in absolute reality. Yeah? What does the "anatta characteristic" look like or act like? If it's a positive characteristic you can describe it. If your answer is, "It's the characteristic of not having a self" I would agree with you, but that's not actually a "positive characteristic," a "something" that can be seen, felt or directly contacted in any way. It's a negative characteristic - the observation or understanding that something is not there, not that something is there. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110923 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: ...confidence (in one's own understanding of these things) is bound to be shaky all the way up to insight stages. I just find it perplexing that such fundamental differences like those between kusala and akusala can't be explained more clearly and precisely so that it would be a little more obvious in practical terms. > > Best wishes > pt Well, maybe I am being too simplistic, but I think we can derive a pretty clear view of kusala and akusala from Buddha's words on the subject in the Sammaditthi Sutta: The Wholesome and the Unwholesome "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Some of the things that are listed in the sutta would have to occur in life in a literal way - like abstention from killing living beings; but what if you are sitting at the kitchen table or sitting in meditation, or talking to a friend, and the feeling of wanting to kill someone, or the desire to really smash a mosquito, or other feelings of hate or anger or violence arise in your mind? Well, then you know that is akusala. If a feeling of complete confidence in the Dhamma arises, if a feeling of goodness and friendliness arises, if a sympathetic joy in other people's happiness arises, if a sense of understanding a nama or a rupa arises, then those things would tend to be kusala. Maybe it gets more complicated when we have a momentary sense of clarity or insight that may be kusala, but then we feel proud or attached to the insight a moment later and that is akusala. But still, we can identify those things that are generally wholesome when they come up and those that are not, and have a sense of whether we are angry, impatient and cloudy-headed at a given time, or calm, sympathetic, quietly joyful and focused on the Dhamma. :-) I mean, put that way, it doesn't seem that subtle does it? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110924 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > Thanks for helping to clarify vedana and feeling, glad to hear that I was not the only one who gets confused about that. > > > While it is impossible to cut off vedana, which arises automatically at contact, it is possible to cut off these further proliferations, and that could be called "cutting off at a feeling." My understanding is that this is what takes place for an arahant - that they still experience vedana, but not proliferations. > > Ph: And I guess it could be said that more and more often and more and more sooner there is a cutting off of proliferation for us, "don't go there!" is a commons sense advice, we "go there" less often and for a shorter time/shallower degree as a result of understanding Dhamma better and being conditioned by it better, if you will. I agree with what you said about mindfulness before too, in your other post. If you are aware of the provocative neighborhood and you look down to avoid it, or if you notice that you have positive vedana with lust/attachment to a woman walking by and it is inappropriate, greater awareness will cut off those proliferations, as you say, increasingly "sooner" and "more often." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110925 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobE and KenH, > > > > KH: >> A modern-day vipassana meditator directs his consciousness. He chooses to "discern" dhammas and to bring about understanding and release. > > > >> > > > > > > RE: > That is not directing and controlling dhammas. It is simply taking a look at what is there, which is what you advocate anyway, just in a different setting. > > > ----- > > > > > > "Taking a look" - call it what you like, it is still something you think you can *do*. > > ... > > In any case whether you call it *doing* or *happening* it is not "trying to exercise control over dhammas" so your statement was inaccurate, plain and simple. > > > pt: In my experience, KenH is right. Whenever I decide to meditate, it's mostly because I want to get something - more sati, panna, calm, whatever, which is in essence nothing else but trying to control dhammas. There's a hope though that during the actual meditation, this particular want will fall away, and a moment of clarity can arise with awareness of present moment, and so, free of want for something else. But this might be a fools hope... Well at every moment in samsara we're going to be doing something. There isn't anyone here who wouldn't spend time meditating if they thought it would produce the path factors, and that is also why they are studying Dhamma at all. So the idea that there is no result orientation in anything is just foolish. If we didn't have any result orientation towards the path we wouldn't follow it, period. The question is whether something is useful or not and will lead to developing the path. Even the immediate practice of 'seeing what dhammas are now' that is so popular here [although almost impossible to experience] is only of interest to anyone because it leads to development of panna. If you do things for their own sake without any thought of result you are already enlightened and don't need the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110926 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 19 October 2010 10:01, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ------- > KH: >> Explanations of how things work help us to understand what those > things are. <. . .> > > H: > I hazard a thought here that it is this kind of understanding that is > based on, and leads to more self-view. > ------- > > Sour grapes? :-) > > I don't think so. ---------- > H: > Nama is not something that exists in itself. > ---------- > > That is the kind of language that really gets my hackles up. It's Mahayana > philosophy, isn't it? > I have never studied Mahayana philosophy, so any similarity is accidental. > As far as I know it was designed by Nagarjuna to destroy the Abhidhamma, > and to leave the way open for belief in self. > > ------------------ > H: > If it did, then you could be nama, and if I had a dollar for every > thought that consciousness is self then I would own a very large mansion > just up the road from you :-). > ------------------ > > There goes the neighbourhood! :-) > > To say that something "does not exist in itself" or "lacks own being" is > just meaningless Nagarjuna double-talk. > > We all know there is some kind of existence. > Yeah, we do By equating existence with self, Nagarjuna was able to have his cake and eat > it too. He could pay lip service to anatta and still have a secret belief in > an indefinable self. > > ------------------------- > H: > But experience is otherwise. Whatever is experienced, I am not it. > ------------------------- > > It's OK to say you are not it, but you were saying *it* was not it. And > that is not OK. > As you say, we all know there is existence of some kind. What I have been trying to say is that we only know anything about existence by NOT being it. So, existence, as far as we are able to say, includes a negative, a NOT being. Not only is that OK, it is necessary :-) > > ---------------------- > H: > That "not being" is the ongoing dynamic. If I was ever something, then > I could stop craving for being. But I am never anything, and that is what is > being experienced. This is not theory, this is what is happening. > -------------------------- > > Dhammas are being experienced. They exist, and they have the anatta > characteristic. > So you assert. And I say that a positive characteristic can only be known through NOT being that characteristic. > -------------------------------------- > H: > Abhidhamma commentary explanations of "what is" are all positive, and > they therefore do not, and cannot account for the reality of anatta, which > is "not being". The positive must include the negative. > -------------------------------------- > > The Theravada Dhamma does not say existence is self. It does not say having > substance (characteristics) means having self. Those are just red herrings > introduced by people who want Buddhism to be a secret form of > eternity-belief. > > I am not sure why you introduce self here. Perhaps a straw man ? ------------------- > <. . .> > H: > It makes sense doesn't it, to be free from suffering, rather than to > tell myself that the theory says I can't possible be suffering, so therefore > I am not. > ------------------- > > Neither of those things applies. *You* are not suffering, and you are not > free from suffering. > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." (Vism) > > Yeah, I agree. You are only confirming that anatta is absence, though. ---------------------- > KH: >> The 'one object at a time' explanation is very persuasive if you > think about it. Can you imagine what it what it would be like to experience > two objects at a time? How would you tell them apart? There would be neither > one thing not the other. Impossible! > >> > > H: > Standing on Jon and Sarah's balcony, it would mean nothing to point to > the water and proclaim "there is one ocean", or up in the air and proclaim > "there is one sky". The ocean or sky are not a unit, they are not single. > Rather, they are complex, and variegated. Like the breath. > --------------------- > > You are avoiding the question. Can two objects (as distinct from one > mixture of two objects) be experienced together? > I wasn't avoiding the question. I was demonstrating the silliness inherent in dividing up and counting experience. > Let me save you the trouble: the only sensible, scientific answer is no. > :-) > > If you say so. > ------------------------------- > H: > So, I don't need to imagine what the experience of multiplicity is > like, it is happening non-stop. The fact that attention singles stuff out is > hardly relevant. The all is not limited by attention. And I am neither the > all, nor attention. > ------------------------------- > > You can be very annoying. :-) > > --------------------------------- > H: > When namas appear at the mind door they are experienced by mentally > cognizing consciousness, not by seeing consciousness, or hearing or touching > (etc) consciousness. > >> > > H: > The above is not something I can relate to, Ken. > ---------------------------------- > > Of course you can! > > I don't experience my eyes seeing, do you? Nor my ears hearing etc > -------------------- > KH: > > You can mentally cognize consciousness, can't you? > >> > > H: > No, I can't, to be honest. To be conscious of red, straightforwardly > described, is to know red, and know at once that the knowing of red and the > being of red do not coincide. There is the experience of a distance, so to > speak, between red and knowing it. I am not red. What you and Abhidhamma > commentary are doing is to invent a distinct reality, a distinct being, to > account for this experience of separation or distance. You call that > experience nama. What I am saying is that the experience of nama is not an > experience of a positive something, I am saying it is a negative, it is > not-being the object. > > > Nothing is itself, Ken, nothing, least of all consciousness. That > is emptiness for you. > --------------------- > > I will not say what it really is. :-) > > Nama (consciousness) experiences an object. We all know what that means; we > all know what it is to be conscious of something. > Just as you do not experience your eyes seeing, you do not experience consciousness experiencing an object. What you experience is an object, and the sense that the object and the experience of it are not the same. > > The only question is, why are you (and Nagarjuna) making such a big deal of > this? Why do you question the reality of nama and rupa? > > The only obvious answer is: wrong view, belief in self. > > Is that a straw herring, or a red man? -------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Sunnata and anatta are, IMO, relationships between things, not things > in themselves. One cannot see that a glass is empty, one has to think it. > The glass in itself is only what it is, it's emptiness consists of the > difference between what is thought, and what is. Globally, that translates > into sunnata being the difference between what is sensed, and what is > thought. > > > I'm talking from my experience only, of course :-) > --------------------------------- > > It's quite straightforward: anatta is a characteristic born by all absolute > realities. Because of that, there can be no atta in the entire universe of > absolute reality. > > You are looking at it from the wrong angle. You are suggesting there is > something called atta. > How can you so misread me? I am saying that whatever is experienced, it has to include negation, a not being.. > And then you are saying, because atta cannot be found in absolute reality, > all dhammas are described as anatta. > > No, I am denying that nama is a positive. Knowing an object consists of the object and NOT being that object. > Even though you are getting HD's in your Philosophy course, this is a > different course altogether. Just be glad it's not up to me to grade your > DSG papers! :-) > > HD's in philosophy tend to indicate an ability to think clearly through complex issues. And that would presumably include the ability to tell the difference between what is experienced and what is thought. If the Abhidhamma is not about experience, it is about nothing. As to the "science" of the Atthalasini, you are welcome to it :-) Cheers Herman #110927 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > Phil: Wouldn't you say the 10 kusala kamma patha and the 10 akusala kamma patha are explained very, very explicitly? > > pt: Yes, you are right. Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to kusala and akusala relating to breath as object. It seems like such an important issue, since most meditators tend to use breath as the object. Sorry I was off that point too, but I think all the variants of greed, hate, delusion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, etc., can all be applied to one's state in relation to the breath at any given moment. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110928 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:20 am Subject: Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) philofillet Hi Rob E > I agree with what you said about mindfulness before too, in your other post. If you are aware of the provocative neighborhood and you look down to avoid it, or if you notice that you have positive vedana with lust/attachment to a woman walking by and it is inappropriate, greater awareness will cut off those proliferations, as you say, increasingly "sooner" and "more often." Just a small clarification, the "looking down to avoid" is a rarely applied tactic, akin to the monks "one plough's length" when doing alms rounds, so there is no danger of proliferations, in that case. I'm not recommending that kind of approach as a general way for householders, only on certain days where understanding has pointed out in a clear way that lust is causing behaviour problems. (For me, this means gazing at women in a very hungry way that they become aware of, not doing that is a kind of dana, giving freedom-from-fear.) So the awareness that arises to cut off (if you will) proliferation is when the more common approach to guarding the senses is at work (or failing to be at work), the moving from the sign to details. Metta, Phil #110929 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:27 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob > If I can jump in, I think that there are a few separate issues and possibilities here. One is that it is probably akusala in its own right to watch porn movies or to get off on the violence in the Kung Fu movies. So let's agree that this is akusala. One should refrain from such activities. On the other hand there are two mitigating factors - one is if the mind is developed enough to "guard the senses" and not allow the akusala material to affect the mind. The three levels of how akusala experiences may be guarded against came up recently. Paraphrasing, I think from the Vism., they were: > > 1. Avoiding the Kung Fu movies so one is not exposed to them. > 2. Watching the Kung Fu movies, but not paying attention, so that the material does not enter the senses, even though you are in the same room. > 3. Watching the Kung Fu movies, and paying attention, so that the material does register with the senses, but having the mind guarded to the extent that there is no reaction to the material. In a sense, it is registering, but one is still not involved with the material at all. One remains detached. Ph: No, sorry, I don't see this. If one watches porn movies, it is with full intent to feed lust, and any kind of application to theories of guarding the sense doors is irrelevant, I think, and maybe even worse, exploting the teachings to justify bad behaviour. (Not saying that's what you are doing, but what a person might be doing if he followed you line of thinking. > > Let's say you were forced to have a business meeting at a strip club, and you didn't want to be there. You had determined to avoid such akusala experiences, but there you are. So you put your attention squarely on the business meeting, and you ignore the strippers. If you do see them, you don't "go with it" and have any enjoyment of what is taking place, you remain detached. Ph: Irrelevant, I think. I'd be watching porn with full intent and full interest. > Finally, while all the above situations may be akusala, if one sees the experience for what it is, sees that it is a series of dhammas, sees whether they are nama or rupa, sees their characteristics, such as akusala, sees that they are anatta or anicca, this seeing the reality transforms the experience in that moment, and at least for that moment, from akusala to kusala, because a detached seeing of akusala for what it is, is a moment of kusala. And I think that is the point that Rob K. was making. If you go back to attachment and defiled enjoyment, that is akusala. Ph: Yes, I understand the point he was making, but I don't buy it, or the above from you. Engaging in bad behaviour and knowing it is bad behaviur, and then sucking moments of thinking about nama and rupa and anatta and so on out of the experience and it is just thinking for us - well, that just seems like a kind of exploitation of deep Dhamma topics for the purpose of being able to get off (so to speak) guilt free. Yes, of course, after there has been bad behaviour, there can be reflection on those topics to calm remorse, but during the behaviour, *just stop* is the best way, I think. Metta, Phil #110930 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of right view? philofillet Hi Nina (and Sarah) Thanks for the below, a very important topic. I think it has helped me reach a point where I can express my doubts and difficulties in a clearer way. But not today, back to you on Saturday night, and Sarah for your post on cutting off feelings too, thanks! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Phil and pt, > Op 20-okt-2010, om 12:25 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > It seems to me that at it's most basic level, right view is about > > the conceptual content of one's thinking. I think that there will > > be results to my bad deeds, so I avoid doing them. OK, I guess we > > can say that that is the function of the cetasika panna, but...oh, > > I don't know Nina! It's beyond me. > ----- > N: I am not yet thinking of supramundane right view, it is still far > away. It is not so difficult to understand that right understanding > or pa~n~naa is a cetasika. it means that it arises because of > conditions and that it is not my right view or right understanding. > You and pt. came into contact with the Buddha's teachings and this is > the condition for not killing cockroaches. You have some > understanding of kamma that brings result. > This understanding can become deeper and deeper, and at the first > stage of insight it is more clearly known what kamma is, what vipaaka > is. > > > ------- > Ph: > > But it sometimes feel when I hear you and others that you want > > people to have supramundane right view, that you are promoting > > supramundane right view. > ------- > N: No, not at all, how could I? It all depends on the growth of > pa~n~naa, it develops according to its own conditions and cannot be > interfered with. > ------ > > > Ph: OK, "the possibily of akusala is not completely eradicated", > fine. But the idea that behaviour isn't modified by exposure to, > reflection on, and increased understanding of the Dhamma is peculiar > to me. > ------- > N: Yes, more understanding conditions siila, also siila develops. But > siila as regards the five precepts is not yet enduring for the non- > ariyans. When you are in danger of life you may kill. There are still > the seven latent tendencies not yet eradicated. Thus, there is always > this danger present. All the same, there are conditions to live > according to the precepts. > ------- > Nina. > > > > > > #110931 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> KH: >> Similarly, in conventional science, mass could be described as a negative "absence of masslessness" just as easily as a positive "presence of mass". >> RE: >I'm sorry, but this is a truly ridiculous statement. ---------- I was worried that it might not get past Howard (who is a mathematician) but he seemed to approve in principle. He said "Of two opposites, I agree that frequently either could be taken as a positive," Admittedly, Howard didn't think the principle applied to anatta - "but often that is not so. This is a case in which, IMO, it is not so." I don't see why it should not be so in that case. But maybe we shouldn't go down that sidetrack any further. ---------------- RE: > "Masslessness" does not exist any more than "the absence of a self" is a thing. ---------------- Perhaps you should take that up with Howard. ------------------------------- RE: > They are concepts or observations, not "actualities." You don't say that Person X's absence from dinner creates a positive presence called "X-lessness." The understanding that Person X is not there is a concept, not a reality. --------------------- In your example there is a person who is not present. But the situation is different with dhammas: there is no atta that is not present. Atta is the negative; anatta is the positive. ------------------------ RE: > Anatta doesn't have a shape, color or smell. It is a concept or a negative observation that something we thought was there turns out to not be real. ------------------------- That's right; anatta is the positive presence and atta is the negative absence. :-) -------------------------------- RE: > So we observe with some astonishment that there is no self to people or things. But there is no "anatta-thing" that is *on* a dhamma. --------------------------------- According to the Abhidhamma, anicca dukkha and anatta *are* characteristics born by physical and mental elements. As such, they (together with the other characteristics) form the sabhava (substance) of the elements. I am sorry you can't see it that way, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. ---------------- RE: > It's an observation. I have challenged you in the past to tell me what an "anatta" would look like as a positive characteristic, ---------------- As I recall, my reply at the time was that an experience of anatta would be like staring into an abyss. - an abyss that was in the place where atta might otherwise have been. ------------------------ RE: > but all you can say is "it's the characteristic of anatta" because there is no thing that is an anatta. ------------------------ I'm sorry if I said that. I don't know what it could mean. ------------------------------ RE: > It is a conceptual understanding that there is no self. There is not a "no-self" anywhere in the world, including stuck onto dhammas. When it is said that "anatta is a characteristic" of dhammas, it is a figure of speech. It is more accurate to say "no dhamma has an atta or is part of an atta." ------------------------------- Try looking at it this way: concepts (man, tree, table etc) are neither anicca, dukkha nor anatta. They do not have characteristics. Only dhammas have characteristics. That's what makes them different from concepts. Ken H #110932 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:08 am Subject: The 4 Clingings! bhikkhu5 Friends: There are four kinds of Mental Clinging: The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus: There are these four kinds of Clinging. What four? 1: Clinging to Sense-Pleasures... 2: Clinging to Various Views... 3: Clinging to Rituals and Superstition� 4: Clinging to an Ego-Concept� These are the four kinds of Clinging! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of the four kinds of clinging, for the full understanding of these clingings, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind� The Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the ceasing of all clinging! Comment: 1: The 1st kind of clinging to sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, and thoughts is fairly obvious, yet still long habituated and thus tenacious... 2: Clinging is to Views is thinking: Doing good deeds are completely useless. Doing evil have no consequences! No action has any effect on my future! 3: Clinging to rituals & superstition is like thinking that fire, bathing, and various empty rituals, like wearing funny hats & praying, can purify mind� 3: Clinging to an Ego-concept, personality-belief, & a 'self' is the assuming an unchanging internal entity �I-Me', which however is non-existent... The proximate cause of all clinging is Craving, which have to be left! This is the 2nd Noble Truth! Clinging means: adherence, attachment, grip, clasping, clutching, grasping, stubbornly and tenaciously sticking to. The word pali word the Buddha used �Upadana� literally means �taking up� indicating that as soon as one takes up the object, then clinging occurs! Sariputta once said: When, friends, a Noble Disciple understands clinging, the cause of clinging, the ceasing of clinging, and the way leading to the ceasing of clinging, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma... And what is clinging, what is the cause of clinging, what is the ceasing of clinging, what is the way to the cease clinging? Friends: There are these 4 kinds of clinging: clinging to sense-pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals & superstition, and the subtle clinging to the ego-concept of an assumed inner self. With the arising of craving, clinging also arises. With the ceasing of craving, clinging thus ceases too! The way leading to the ceasing of clinging is just this Noble 8-fold Way: Right View , Right, Motivation, Right Speech , Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Awareness, and Right Concentration� Source: Majjhima Nikaya 9. Sammaditthi Sutta: Discourse on Right View http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-009-nb0.html <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:59] section 45: The Way. 173: The 4 Clingings ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110933 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:17 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again Rob E and all I just thought of an analogy that might seem silly at first but may be perfectly applicable. Engaging in harmful, kilesa-feeding activities and finding moments of reflection on anatta, nama and rupa etc in the midst of it would be similar to sprinkling spinach extract on a Big Mac and finding encouragement in that. Yes, there would be moments of the body ingesting nutrients from the spinach, but the great mass of accumulation would be the garbage. Now, my point is moot if these moments of thinking about anatta etc are in fact penetrative moments of insight, but the latter scenario is just wishful thinking, I think, often based on having read stirring anecdotes from the commentaries about people achieving Ariyan status while cooking etc, a very attractive thing to read about. Metta, Phil > Ph: Yes, I understand the point he was making, but I don't buy it, or the above from you. Engaging in bad behaviour and knowing it is bad behaviur, and then sucking moments of thinking about nama and rupa and anatta and so on out of the experience and it is just thinking for us - well, that just seems like a kind of exploitation of deep Dhamma topics for the purpose of being able to get off (so to speak) guilt free. Yes, of course, after there has been bad behaviour, there can be reflection on those topics to calm remorse, but during the behaviour, *just stop* is the best way, I think. > > Metta, > > Phil > #110934 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 20-okt-2010, om 16:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I am recalling additional features which I think are part of > > vittaka - turning the object over, beating the object - this is all > > part of the description of vitakka...? Is this correct? > ----- > N: I answer you next week :-) > Nina. Sounds good. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110935 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > You have understood me well; but I personally do not conclude that anatta > necessarily leads to the cessation of craving. Anatta is not a solution to > suffering, it is part of the problem. To the extent that there is craving > for being [something] , that craving is always going to be thwarted, because > there is nothing that can make itself be [something]. Facing the nothingness of that which wants to be something may lead to letting go of that basic craving. And the living body > simply IS a mass of cravings; that cannot change without death resulting. > Take the breath, for example. Hold it in, hold it in, hold it in some more. > What is now starting to be experienced is craving in action. That > fundamental craving, or the threat of it if it is not constantly being > sated, stays unaltered by any or all understanding. The craving of the body for life may continue, but one may cease to identify with it. That would mean that you don't care if you die, but because you have let go of aversion as well, you also let go of any wanting to die. In this ideal situation the body is like a pet. You take care of the care and feeding because it's what there is to do. You wouldn't cause more suffering by holding the breath to long, or refraining from food, but on the other hand, if you happen to die, there's no resistance. An ideal that I am far from achieving, but if Buddhism really is a path to end suffering, that would have to be in the cards. And even if we are still clinging to life, we can let go to a greater extent, and accept the inevitability of the demise of the body with more equanimity. That I am sure is somewhat possible, even for "us." > > When we realize that the object we are experiencing is just an experience > > and not really that object, that it doesn't have the value we perceive in it > > and that it has no relation to us which we would like it to have, that is > > realization of sunnata - it is empty of any value that we would like to > > acquire. Not realizing this leads to continued clinging and craving, wanting > > to acquire and hold onto pleasant objects to satisfy ourselves. Realizing > > that the object is not what we think it is and never will be, leads to > > letting go. > > > > Yes, I agree that an understanding of the emptiness of experience can lead > to a devaluing of experience(s), and that certainly will result in a > diminishing of suffering. > > > > > > > So perhaps anatta is the subjective pole of emptiness, and sunnata is the > > objective pole. > > > > > Or, could it be just the other way around? If atta was a reality, then we > could make ourselves be whatever. But that is objectively not the case. But > the value accorded to different experiences is not universal, and can change > over time, and that would make subjective. What do you think? I think that's true. Realizing the changeable, rather than fixed, value and meaning of that which is craved, may leave more variability in the way we approach it. It leaves room for changing those values, and approaching gain and loss with more peace. Do I *have* to be upset that my hand-woven Indian rug got stained? Actually, I can choose to detach and let it go. Not always an easy choice, but it can be done. If I have really contemplated anicca, then that inevitability of change and lack of control can lead to less grasping after control, even of treasured objects. I have sometimes had that experience, when something breaks or wears out, or has to be thrown away, of switching from grasping for it and wishing it was the way it used to be, to acceptance and letting it go. For me, that's a big accomplishment! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110936 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Just as you do not experience your eyes seeing, you do not experience > consciousness experiencing an object. What you experience is an object, and > the sense that the object and the experience of it are not the same. > I'd like to explore this a little bit more. There's a lot to talk about in there. I have the sense that mindfulness includes being aware of seeing, hearing, etc., in addition to being aware of the object of seeing, hearing, etc. If I pay attention to seeing and the quality of seeing, I am looking at what "seeing" is like, using the object seen and its qualities now as an example, rather than just as itself. I am not restricted to the object, but can chew over its qualities. I notice that bright light makes a different impression on my eye and is processed differently by my imaging system than something that is dark and murky. I can feel my eyes reacting to the bright light, there is eye-sensation, in addition to being able to be aware of what the visual "picture" is like as it is being taken. I can focus on different parts of the visual field and see what qualities are there when I shift focus. So I think I can become aware of the "camera" as well as the photo. Seems to me that is an important part of mindfulness and becoming aware of the nature of the sensory equipment that is translating reality into my terms. My sense is that vipassana, and awakening as well, has a strong relation to realizing that we live in a cognitive-sensory "box" and that we are in fact a translating device, or set of translating terms to form a coherent reality, rather than simply taking in a pre-digested reality. The sense that we are the result of a camera, a tape-recorder and a computer, etc., to put it in mechanical terms, seems to have a kind of freedom in realizing what we are contained within, and that consciousness is not free-ranging, but constrained by how it is filtered. That makes one more aware of consciousness itself, by counterposing it against its given limits and filters, and distinguishing its basic capacity from the equipment it's operating through. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110937 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:24 am Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > > If I can jump in, I think that there are a few separate issues and possibilities here. One is that it is probably akusala in its own right to watch porn movies or to get off on the violence in the Kung Fu movies. So let's agree that this is akusala. One should refrain from such activities. On the other hand there are two mitigating factors - one is if the mind is developed enough to "guard the senses" and not allow the akusala material to affect the mind. The three levels of how akusala experiences may be guarded against came up recently. Paraphrasing, I think from the Vism., they were: > > > > 1. Avoiding the Kung Fu movies so one is not exposed to them. > > 2. Watching the Kung Fu movies, but not paying attention, so that the material does not enter the senses, even though you are in the same room. > > 3. Watching the Kung Fu movies, and paying attention, so that the material does register with the senses, but having the mind guarded to the extent that there is no reaction to the material. In a sense, it is registering, but one is still not involved with the material at all. One remains detached. > > > Ph: No, sorry, I don't see this. If one watches porn movies, it is with full intent to feed lust, and any kind of application to theories of guarding the sense doors is irrelevant, I think, and maybe even worse, exploting the teachings to justify bad behaviour. (Not saying that's what you are doing, but what a person might be doing if he followed you line of thinking. You may have misunderstood my intent a little bit - my fault for not being clear. I wasn't advocating taking the approach of watching whatever you please but remaining detached. I think there are two things - one, if confronted with material that is challenging, you can either block the experience or block the participation with it even if you experience it, but you would have to be "advanced" enough to be able to do it; and you still wouldn't invite or seek those experiences. For someone who doesn't have that extent of development, it would be better to leave I guess. I was just pointing out that in different stages of development there are other possibilities than staying home to avoid negative proliferations from provocative material. Like you were saying about "looking down," it's not something you want to or can do all the time. > > Let's say you were forced to have a business meeting at a strip club, and you didn't want to be there. You had determined to avoid such akusala experiences, but there you are. So you put your attention squarely on the business meeting, and you ignore the strippers. If you do see them, you don't "go with it" and have any enjoyment of what is taking place, you remain detached. > > Ph: Irrelevant, I think. I'd be watching porn with full intent and full interest. But it might be possible at some point to have a different interest. I agree that if that is not a possibility, then maybe you should leave the meeting. Me too. > > Finally, while all the above situations may be akusala, if one sees the experience for what it is, sees that it is a series of dhammas, sees whether they are nama or rupa, sees their characteristics, such as akusala, sees that they are anatta or anicca, this seeing the reality transforms the experience in that moment, and at least for that moment, from akusala to kusala, because a detached seeing of akusala for what it is, is a moment of kusala. And I think that is the point that Rob K. was making. If you go back to attachment and defiled enjoyment, that is akusala. > > > Ph: Yes, I understand the point he was making, but I don't buy it, or the above from you. Engaging in bad behaviour and knowing it is bad behaviur, and then sucking moments of thinking about nama and rupa and anatta and so on out of the experience and it is just thinking for us - well, that just seems like a kind of exploitation of deep Dhamma topics for the purpose of being able to get off (so to speak) guilt free. Yes, of course, after there has been bad behaviour, there can be reflection on those topics to calm remorse, but during the behaviour, *just stop* is the best way, I think. Yeah; I was really talking about when it is not possible to avoid the experiences, how do you then look at it? Do you just give up and get involved with the material, or do you practice mindfulness and detachment? I was not saying that it makes it okay to do whatever you please, just to be clear. I have personally found it very valuable in some other "unavoidable" situations, to step back and try to see clearly what is taking place. It has been useful with losing my temper at times. I've seen that "anger" is "taking over," and when I step back and look at it, the anger subsides a lot more quickly and doesn't have the same conviction behind it. I can't stop from getting angry but the way I deal with either promotes it further or takes the energy out of it, which allows it to die out. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110938 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > In your example there is a person who is not present. But the situation is different with dhammas: there is no atta that is not present. Atta is the negative; anatta is the positive. In my opinion this is very confused thinking. The fact that atta does not exist and is never there, does not make the lack of atta a positive. It makes atta a nonexistent object, but that does not make noexistence an existent object. That is just conceptual nonsense. There is no such thing as a positive absence. That is taking a perceived emptiness in the mind where there was never anything there in the first place, and calling it a "something." Again, if there is no such thing as a unicorn, that does not make the lack of a unicorn a positive characteristic. It only makes the unicorn just as nonexistent as it ever was. What makes its absence seem like a presence is my thought about it. Other than my thought that "atta does not exist," there's nothing there at all. No characteristic, just no atta. The reason that anatta is an issue at all, is because we believe in atta and are hard-wired to believe in atta. So anatta becomes the solution to that problem, otherwise there is just nothing there, no placeholder, no absence, no presence of absence. Nothing. You can say that if we have ten people with no moles on their face that they have the characteristic of "no-mole," but that is not really a characteristic, it's a comparison to people who do have moles. It's the same with anatta. Anatta is a negative comparison with the belief in atta. > ------------------------ > RE: > Anatta doesn't have a shape, color or smell. It is a concept or a negative observation that something we thought was there turns out to not be real. > ------------------------- > > That's right; anatta is the positive presence and atta is the negative absence. :-) I understand what you are saying, but you are talking nonsense. It's just this kind of nonsense that leads one to invent mythologies where there is really nothing there. There is no such thing as "anatta." Period. Any more than there is any such thing as "atta." They both add up to the same nothing. No self, no non-self. Nothing. Once you have corrected belief in a false fictitious atta with the corrective of anatta, throw it away. Anatta can't be possessed or held onto. It does not exist. > -------------------------------- > RE: > So we observe with some astonishment that there is no self to people or things. But there is no "anatta-thing" that is *on* a dhamma. > --------------------------------- > > According to the Abhidhamma, anicca dukkha and anatta *are* characteristics born by physical and mental elements. As such, they (together with the other characteristics) form the sabhava (substance) of the elements. > > I am sorry you can't see it that way, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you can't describe what the anatta characteristic is other than in conceptual "non-self" terms, then you are merely carrying around an abstract concept, and you don't even know what you think it is. You've got a name for it, but it is empty of any description or intelligent purpose. I have asked you to describe what anatta is other than the "total lack of any self" and you cannot do it. Because anatta does not exist. It is an absence and is defined as such. > ---------------- > RE: > It's an observation. I have challenged you in the past to tell me what an "anatta" would look like as a positive characteristic, > ---------------- > > As I recall, my reply at the time was that an experience of anatta would be like staring into an abyss. - an abyss that was in the place where atta might otherwise have been. I can easily agree with that, but there is no actual abyss unless there is a "place where atta might otherwise have been," and since atta never has existed, where does that abyss exist? It is in the mind, not in the dhamma. It is a comparison between an expectation of atta and the discovery that it is not there. You would never be foolish enough to mistake your friend not showing up at a cafe for a positive "non-friend," would you? The cafe doesn't gain an inherent characteristic of "not having your friend in it," does it? And it doesn't matter that you think your friend actually exists somewhere else. That is also not true, that is also just in the mind at the time you see his absence at the cafe. The abyss of his absence in the cafe is not a thing, it's a concept that compares his absence to his expected presence. Anatta does not exist, period. It is a big mistake to think it does. You're creating ghosts. > ------------------------ > RE: > but all you can say is "it's the characteristic of anatta" because there is no thing that is an anatta. > ------------------------ > > I'm sorry if I said that. I don't know what it could mean. > > ------------------------------ > RE: > It is a conceptual understanding that there is no self. There is not a "no-self" anywhere in the world, including stuck onto dhammas. When it is said that "anatta is a characteristic" of dhammas, it is a figure of speech. It is more accurate to say "no dhamma has an atta or is part of an atta." > ------------------------------- > > Try looking at it this way: concepts (man, tree, table etc) are neither anicca, dukkha nor anatta. They do not have characteristics. Only dhammas have characteristics. That's what makes them different from concepts. That may be fine, but if that is the case, anatta does not qualify, because it is a concept. The realization in discerning that all dhammas are anatta is not a positive discovery. It is the "abyss-like" discovery, as you say, that there is no freaking atta anywhere in the house. It does have the experience of an abyss-like absence, but only in the face of delusion, not inherently in its own right. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110939 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > ---------- > > --------------- > RK: > Do you have some names of scientists who were burnt by the church? > --------------- > > Not actually on me. :-) But I am surprised you would doubt there were any. After a quick Google I have found this quote that sums up what I would have thought was common knowledge: > > ". . . The full range of the Church's actions included harassment, discrimination, censorship, slander, scorn, abuse, threats, persecution, forced recantations, torture and burning at the stake. The list of great scientists opposed by the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. > > ------------------ Dear Ken Ok who of these was burnt at the stake. Newton was a devout Christian, just what did the church do to him. And what did they do to Hubble ? > RK: > The current christian scientists don't object to science per se, or to scientific evidence, what they claim is that the scientific picture of the world is itself a worldview and that science educators mix in certain undisputed evidence with worldviews and claim that it is all proven science. > These Christian scientists don't dispute evolution has occured in various ways, what they question is the current highly extropolated belief among evolution scientists. > ------------------ > > I don't know which Christian scientists you are referring to. I hope it is not the purveyors of Creationism and Intelligent Design, who are currently undermining education systems of America. Those people deserve no credibility whatsoever. > > --------------------------- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ROBERT: I did mean the Intelligent Design purveyors, how are they undermining education exactly? > ---------------------------- > RK: > I wrote to Herman once: > > > You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death? But would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). > > <. . .> > > > Now obviously these beliefs are very much at odds with Dhamma - and yet propageted extensively in science education-so I wonder why you would privilege them over Christain views? > --------------- > > Regarding: "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death?" what do you understand by "we" in that context, Robert? Do you take it to mean sentient beings, or do you take it to mean the five khandhas? If it is the former, then you should be guided by science. If it is the latter, you should be guided by the Dhamma. > +++++++ let's look at the Tipitika and commentaries and we can clarify whether we should be guided by Science or Dhama on these matters: here ar two passages from the Dhammapada atthakatha. From HEN to Princess to God to Pig, back to royalty and onward... http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/u/ubbarii.htm Ubbari -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ubbari.-A princess. In the time of Kakusandha she was a hen. Having heard a monk repeat a formula of meditation, she was born as a royal princess and named Ubbari. Seeing a heap of maggots in the privy, she meditated thereon and entered the first jhana and was born in the Brahma-world. In the time of Gotama Buddha she was reborn as a sow in Rajagaha, and the Buddha, seeing her, smiled and related her past to Ananda. Later she was born in the royal household in Suvannabhumi, then, in succession, in a horse-dealer's house in Supparaka and in a mariner's household in Kavira. Then she was reborn in a nobleman's house in Anuradhapura, and again in the village of Bokkanta in South Ceylon, as the daughter of a householder named Sumana. She was called Sumana, after her father. When her father moved to the village of Mahamuni in Dighavapi, Lakuntaka Atimbam, prime minister of Dutthagamani, met her and married her, and she went to live in Mahapunna. From Man to Flea to Deva (all in one week). http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Dhammapada.pdf The Elder Tissa's Story ......Seeing the fine quality robe the Elder took a liking to it, and hung it on a rail intending to use it the next day. Unable to digest all the food he had eaten, the Elder died during the night and was reborn as a louse in that very robe. The monks performed the funeralrites for the Elder, and since no one had attended on the Elder during his sickness they decided that the robe should be divided among themselves. The louse became distraught as they took the robe to divided it, and hearing the louse screaming, the Buddha called the Elder nanda and sent him with a message to tell the monks to lay the robe aside for seven days. At the end of seven days, the louse died and was reborn in Tusita heaven. On the eighth day the Buddha permitted the monks to divide Tissa's robe. They did so, and talked among themselves, wondering why the Buddha had asked them to wait. The Buddha explained that had he not intervened, the louse would have born a grudge against them, and would have been reborn in hell. """ This is Dhamma and obviously we have no problem understanding how these sudden changes happen, due to the extreme rapidity of the arising and passing of khandhas and to the accumulations carried along. But what evolution scientists think is quite different. I think most of them would not accept these stories as being literally true. Lets see what they tell impressionable children: They still in many schools relate the famous miller urey experiment where a scientist mades ome amino acids appear in flask The idea of the experiment were to find out if life could have spontaneously generated in an early earth environment, and so he supplied a lab version of what was thought to be the atmosphere of the early earth and also Miller added electrical current to the apparatus. which was supposed to replicate lightning strikes thought to be common at the time. Millers experiment formed 3 or 4 of 20 amino acids necessary for basic life, Children are not usually told that 1. Scientists now think the atmospher at the time of the planets beginning was very different from what Miller had thought and 2. there were afr less lightning stomrs happening compared to the amount of eletrical charges Miller pumped through 3. he used a cold trap to keep the amino acids around for far longer would have been the case. Unforunately there is no evidence that the atmosphere at that time had anything like this. Further, even if a few amino acids were floating around planet earth they would be very unlikely to mix by chance and form DNA or the other highly complex parts of a cell. And a cell itself is as complex a major city. No scientist can even imagine how they could make one out of mixing chemicals together, no matter all the advances in science. Yet chldren are - in biology classes led to connect the dots; "see here are amino acids made in the lab , you can see how over time it is sure that cells and bacteria must sooner or later form, and so life beagan and here we are today." It is all very neat and seamless but misleading and leads to a materialistic view of the world. Robert #110940 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #1 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 1. ====== > In other words, the development of satipatthana overrides any need to develop kusala of other kinds including Jhana. Besides, while Jhana is limited to seeing harm in attachment to sense objects, vipassana panna knows attachment to being and becoming and leads thence to the end of samsara. > > To put all this differently, while Jhana sees danger in a certain aspect of conditioned realities and aims to overcome it, it does not know any of this as being just that, namely a `conditioned reality' and therefore ends up merely "suppressing". On the other hand vipassana panna whose object is the nature of conditioned dhammas is aimed therefore at "eradicating" ignorance. Robert: My understanding is that they work together. The jhanas suppress defilements so that vipassana can arise. Jhana is not just the object of insight but the ideal setting for it as well, if one has been trained in detachment. Suk: Regarding dhammas that support right understanding this is usually expressed in terms of those that *arise together* with it, such as right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Also what is taught is the 10 Perfections, these are wholesome qualities developed through uncountable lifetimes along with Right Understanding without which enlightenment can't happen. The idea expressed by you above is common, and I'm sure you can quote me some sutta to support your view. But this is a matter of interpretation and I don't wish to go into that. But instead I'll draw your attention to something else. Given that Right Understanding is the forerunner of the Path is it not reasonable to see the mental factors such as mindfulness, effort and concentration accompanying the citta as also 'right' and developing together? The higher the level of understanding, correspondingly high are these realities. Panna develops gradually from a weak level beginning with pariyatti and when well developed, the patipatti level along with such dhammas as faith, energy, mindfulness and concentration becomes at some point an indriya or faculty, which with further development becomes bala or power. Now would something which goes through the above process including the development of the paramis through countless lifetimes suddenly require Jhana which has nothing to do with Right View, to support? Is this not underestimating the power of this particular kind of panna and lack of appreciation the way in which it is developed? Besides in Jhana the defilements are suppressed by power of the citta one after the other, taking on the same subject. Going along with your theory, vipassana arising subsequent to Jhana, would not then have the same object as did the Jhana citta and therefore the defilements at the time, would not in fact remain suppressed. So if this is the case, what good then was the Jhana? Do you have an alternative explanation? As far as I'm concerned, the panna which is the N8FP can and *must* be developed from the very beginning without ever shying away from any akusala dhamma that happen to arise. It therefore at no time ever requires the help of any other dhamma preceding it to clear the way so to speak. It almost seems disrespect to the Buddha to claim that his Path requires such a support as Jhana. Metta, Sukinder #110941 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #2 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 2, =========== > > Rob: How do you know they are wrong? Is it a matter of faith on your part? > > S: The saddha would more or less be in direct proportion to the level of right understanding which I can't claim to have much of. In any case, you'd understand from what I've written above why I say what I say. But I'll add that, given that samatha development starts with knowing the difference between kusala and akusala in daily life, Robert: and why is that? Does one really have to *start* with clear discernment between kusala and akusala for samatha to develop? How do you define samatha? Suk: Nobody is talking about "clear" discernment. The point is that it must start "now". It does not matter whether or not there is any level of understanding arise even, what is important is that rather than thinking in terms of another time, place or activity, one understands that there is no other time than this present moment for any kind of development to occur. Thinking otherwise is to be going along with some projected idea about development. Samatha as in 'calm' is any kind of kusala and this would include, dana, sila, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is development of kusala with one of the 40 subjects of meditation including the kasinas, asubha, brahmaviharas and so on, which can lead to Jhana of different levels. ============ > talk about trying to develop Jhana with no indication of any interest in the former, seems like `ambition' lead by an ideal. This is not knowing oneself / being in touch with reality. Robert: Well certainly no one said there was "no interest" in kusala. But I don't see "kusala" as a separate understanding from that which *is* kusala. Suk: What usually manifests here and other places is much talk about practice and Jhana. Jhana is end result of much development and therefore someone who has treaded this particular path would know how hard it is. He would not only not throw the idea at others, but in any conversation would certainly be very cautious about acknowledging anything claimed by them. He'd be interested to know for example, if whether the other person knows what attachment to sense pleasure is and how often in a day that person experiences any level of calm. So yes, he'd be talking about daily life experiences and not about that which in fact is the result of a very high level of development. In the situation of Buddhists today, it would seem then that the more the talk about Jhana, the greater the misunderstanding about what the development of samatha really is. And so when you state above that Jhana *is* kusala and feel justified therefore in talking and discussing about it, to me it seems that in fact you won't get anywhere. Metta, Sukinder #110942 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #3 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 3, =========== > And with regard to the development of the 8FP, this in fact begins with pariyatti without which patipatti can't arise. Robert: Why is that? Suk: You're not saying that it is possible to experience satipatthana without having heard the Dhamma in any given lifetime are you? ======== Robert: What if someone has an experience of correct practice before understanding is full developed and that experience actually increases the understanding. This idea that pariyatti and knowledge of discerning what is kusala must be complete before anything else can develop is very formulaic. Suk: This has been pointed out several times to you and for example Alex, that no one here is talking about the need for perfect pariyatti understanding before there can be patipatti. The issue is about what you all take for practice, namely 'meditation', that this in fact is not patipatti, and it is because of wrong understanding at the intellectual level that you think it is so. We all have so much wrong understanding accumulated and need to go on correcting our views at the intellectual level. There is of course some minimum required before patipatti can begin to arise occasionally and when this begins to happen, then sure the two levels of understanding support each other. But even an ariyan would need to continue listening on and on and this itself is evidence of the value of listening. There can be wholesome interest in listening to the Dhamma and discussing it, but the same can't apply to any idea about meditation. In the case of the former certain conventional actions would necessarily be required such as opening a book or tape or the internet for discussion, hence the need for some level of planning. However when it comes to patipatti, this being about direct experience of dhammas and these dhammas arising now, to think of another time and place is to get lost in thought conditioned by ignorance and attachment as well as wrong understanding. Metta, Sukinder #110943 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #4 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 4, ======== > The apparent overlooking of the need for continued development through listening and discussing and instead jumping on to a self-projected idea about `practice' is clear indication therefore, of lack of that very basic level of understanding needed as a starting point. Robert: Well that's one way of looking at it. I've spent more time discussing Dhamma than I have meditating at this point, and I'm not going to wait until I'm dead before I "practice." Sorry about that, but your projections as to what this means are incorrect. Suk: Even if you gave yourself 10 minutes a day for meditation and spent say, 9 hours in discussions, this would still indicate lack of Right Understanding. This is because you take what is not the Path for the Path. Samvega or sense of urgency is the function of panna. And this panna would not move away from the dhamma 'now' into ideas about time, place, posture and some idealized object such as the breath. Sorry about that, but yours is no sense of urgency. ;-) ======== > Given the above it should now be clear why I consider most Buddhists today to be quite confused. ;-) Robert: I think it's a strange standpoint to take. First you attribute all sors of ignorance, false motives and self-view to a bunch of people you have never met, and then you conclude that your understanding is quite superior. I think that's not only self-congratulatory but sloppy thinking, and seems to have quite a bit of self-view in that presumption. Suk: First, my assessment is based on general principles and so I don't actually need all that much information. Second, it is understood that I base my opinion on those people that I have come across so far and that these come from different teachers and traditions that have in all, a large following. Third, you can always bring up ideas by any of these teachers and traditions to argue and prove me wrong. Why don't you just do this instead of passing judgements such as the above? There is nothing to be proud of ever, although sometimes there may be some attachment to the idea of having some level of right understanding. Of course I do have *all* defilements very much intact, no different from what was there before I heard the Dhamma. You may be reacting to the perception of my being stubborn and unaccommodating with regard to the views expressed by others. And I too sometimes react more or less similarly. But still let us try to limit these kinds of discussions to this matter of view alone.... Metta, Sukinder #110944 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #5 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 5, ======== Question: Why is everyone so busy criticizing others and thinking themselves correct and superior instead of examining their own assumptions and ignorant attachments? Suk: How do you know that some kind of self-assessment doesn't happen in a day including while arguing here? Are you perhaps seeking an acknowledgement on our part that you are right and that we are wrong? But how can you expect this to happen when the perception arises each time, of you and everyone else being wrong? ======== > S: Well `thinking through' is not necessarily a virtue as much attachment is likely involved, worse when wrong view ends up being encouraged. Robert: And what if none of that is taking place? You are making all of that up in order to give yourself a scenario in which your understanding is superior again. Great. Suk: You were suggesting that "I" think through and so the above was actually about "me". ======== > Why I conclude that `self view' must necessarily be involved in any thought to meditate or even in `trying to do good' for example? > > The imperative for any student of the Dhamma is to understand that there are at any given moment only paramattha dhammas. Robert: I think the imperative is to understand what is actually taking place, rather than understand an abstract point. Suk: Mine was a statement expressing the need for right understanding at the pariyatti level without which we continue insisting on activities conditioned by wrong view, such as in the idea of meditation. Your resistance to this shows that what you refer to when you say, "understand what is actually taking place" must be in fact an encouragement of some wrong view, one in much need of correction. ======== Robert: At any given moment we are incapable of understanding paramatha dhammas because it is only known as a concept. Suk: This is what Phil for example keeps failing to get. Pariyatti is not patipatti; however understanding is understanding, this is the relationship between these two levels. Of course it must start with the intellectual level and for a long time, this will be about all that can be had. The problem is not so much that you fail to see this connection and consequently opt for the paths that you each take, but rather that you are in fact attracted to those paths and this obstructs seeing this very important relationship between pariyatti and patipatti which we keep explaining to you about. We keep pointing out to you the difference, but you keep coming back as though you haven't heard what we've said. Metta, Sukinder #110945 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #6 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 6, ======== Robert: What we can know is what we actually see and experience, not this abstract theory. Why not look into what is there and see that it is anicca, anatta and dukkha? Suk: You've got it all backwards. Understanding the three characteristics is the end result of an extremely long road of development beginning with pariyatti. It's like you've not even begun to understand the Dhamma! ======== Robert: That is superior to conceptualizing about "paramatha dhammas," cittas and cetasikas all day long while living in a cloud of ignorance and not even looking at what is in front of one's own face. Suk: Better no sati in a day and on hindsight acknowledge this, than to be fooled into taking what is not sati for sati and the wrong path for right. And while you judge pariyatti as mere "conceptualizing about "paramattha dhammas," cittas and cetasikas", you move further away from taking the initial step needed to tread upon the right Path. ======= > Not only this, but also that one citta arises at a time to experience one object and this too, fallen away already. In other words, the object of Right Understanding is always the present moment which is accompanied by a corresponding level of detachment to the idea of self and control. After all why would that which sees the present moment as being conditioned already, intend then to be involved in certain activities in the future aimed at this very kind of understanding? Robert: I'm interested in engaging in path activities now, not in the future, and doing so is its own reward. You are the one who is busy conceptualizing all day long about dhammas that you can't actually experience, while I am practicing and looking at what I can experience. Suk: Statements all made by 'self' (not referring to conceit here), which when actualize each time what it conceives of, becomes more bloated. Your "now" *is* a conceiving about the future, since it involves some kind of 'doing'. The only real "now" is that which appears at this very moment and any Right Understanding of this would be of it as having already fallen away. ========== Robert: We should practice the path from what we do experience, not from what we should or would experience if we were arahants, which we are not. Suk: What about understanding intellectually what the arahats understand and realizing that ours is wrong perception and wrong thinking conditioned by wrong understanding? Would we then go along with these? 'Where we are' is known never before this initial level of right intellectual understanding, and when this happens, *this* is the starting point. Failing this is indeed the reason why we continue chasing our own projections. Metta, Sukinder #110946 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #7 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 7, ========= Robert: A conceptual framework is useless in awakening. What is important is to look at your present level of understanding and see that your body is anicca, getting older, can't hold onto it. That your friends will all be gone when you die, and that it is better to let go, etc. When you are confronted with real life events, as are sometimes discussed here, that is much more real than spinning on about paramatha dhammas all day long. Sometimes it seems that a parrot would have just as strong pariyatti if he could just master the vocabulary. Suk: You keep making statements about things which require knowledge about their characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. For those of us who have begun to realize how much ignorance there is, the inclination rightly, is to read more and discuss about these things. But you and others keep encouraging one another to instead go along with own ideas projected. Take for example the idea of "letting go", any fool will have his own idea as to what this is. Your asserting this here is therefore a case of encouraging me to go along with the perverted understanding that I may have. Is this not encouraging more ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding and a case of one blind leading another blind? ========== > In this regard the average Buddhist, those who believe in `doings' is no different from those who believe in God. Robert: Or those who believe in little tiny dhammas that they can't see; or those that believe in Tinkerbell. Suk: "See", or is it "understand"? What do you think is understood and at what level do you think we speak from? Don't we refer to such things as seeing, hearing, hardness, thinking, sound and so on, things that all of us make reference to all day anyway? It is you who is adding the element of mystery into something so simple and straightforward! No one is expected to have any penetrative understanding and the object even for those quite advanced, is nimita of any one of these above mentioned realities. The first step is to acknowledge that what we used to think for example, as being "I who sees", that in reality "seeing is only an element". This is pariyatti level of understanding and no one is claiming to have much more than this. Indeed I sometimes get the impression from those who meditate, that this is too ordinary for their taste and that they expect something loftier from the practice that they engage in. Metta, Sukinder #110947 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #8 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 8, ========== > The theist can't help attributing `control' to God, since he can't find any other explanation seeing that the mechanism *must* exist somewhere. He does not understand conditionality where `self' has no place, and would therefore not even want to hear about such a thing. The meditator is in a similar position, since he does not want to acknowledge that this very moment there are only conditioned realities rising and falling away beyond control, and instead gets caught up in the idea of a `self' moving in time. Robert: That is nonsense. The meditator does not have a greater idea of self moving through time than you do. We're all in the same boat, but you are dreaming about a world where it is not so for you, just for everyone else. Poor meditators! They actually experience their experience instead of just thinking about it and categorizing it theoretically. A shame! Suk: Rright! I and others have always admitted to having only an intellectual understanding, but you are claiming to have direct understanding all by virtue of being engaged in 'meditation'. And you go on to protect all those other people who claim to do similarly and rest satisfied with just that, without ever seeing need to question the mode of observation that goes on during the time. So who in fact is fooling himself here? ========= > He thinks in terms of future results coming from what he does now or will do later. Robert: No he does not. He meditates because it is his path, and it is very good when he does. It is kusala in a tangible and concrete way. Suk: By virtue of what?!! ======== Robert: There is no thought of the future but only the experience of now. Suk: Now is now. This has nothing to do with trying to be present, the determining factor being the arising of panna of some level to know something about the present moment, and is quite opposed to being involved in ideas about past and future. So apparently this is all about gradual development of understanding, again beginning with pariyatti. In this comes the idea of saccannana, which is firm intellectual understanding about the 4 NTs. This manifest as not moving away from this present reality whatever it is, knowing that this is the object that must be studied. It is the kind of understanding which leads to satipatthana arising more often. Therefore so long as one keeps thinking in terms of another time, place and object, this saccannana understanding will not arise and therefore one shouldn't expect to have satipatthana. The now would in fact not be now, and wherever one goes to meditate, one is never there, so to speak. Metta, Sukinder #110948 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #10 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 10, ========= > Rob: > What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? > > S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this interfere with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive is that it is the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. Robert: Of course you perceive that! You are looking through glasses that tell you "you are right." When have you challenged your view and really examined it critically? Never? Suk: When doubt arises and there is some understanding of this, this leads back to the very basic premise from which I come, which is that there is only the present moment to be known. A moment of ehi pasiko here? ======== > Rob: > Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is correct? > > S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking now for example, are real? Robert: Well one needs to look and see if they know what that means, not just say the words. Suk: It looks like you believe that for those of us who don't meditate, sati can't arise during everyday activities and what we end up with is just 'talk'. But remember, there is only the present moment, and this is the background understanding from which direct study can ever arise. ======== > What more do you need in order to be convinced that there is only ever the present moment which can be known hence needed to be object of Right Understanding? Robert: Have you ever seen the present moment as it actually is, or is it just a concept? If the latter, what makes you think you know what you are talking about? Suk: And the reason for your questioning my understanding is because I don't see the need to meditate....? Metta, Sukinder #110949 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #9 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 9, ========== Robert: But you can make up whatever negative story about your abstract meditator that you like, since it is your own vain thought-creation. Don't you realize how arrogant it is to think you know something about another person's practice who you have not even spoken to? It's a fairy tale you tell yourself to feel good about your own self-view and expectations of your own path. Suk: But it is alright for you to go on to defend other meditators even though you have no more information about them than I do? But let's just talk about you then. Why is it that the mindfulness which arises during your meditation practice, this can't arise now while reading and discussing? ========== > But there is no one to receive any fruits, so why are such ideas necessitated? The answer is, "self view". Robert: You have made up the story that they are necessitated! They are not! Suk: You say that it is panna then? Please explain why it would be. ========= > > Rob: What if you have an illusion of result based on your own chosen idea of "right understanding" of Dhamma as you define it? > > S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion of result. Robert: And it will, and does, very close to home... Suk: You can read my thoughts? ========= > However this will not be due to what you state as "my chosen idea of right understanding", being that it is one which demands attention to what the reality is "now". Robert: No it doesn't. It demands non-stop conceptualizing. K. Sujin has said in a number of quotes to stop paying so much attention to terminology and the terms like nama and rupa and experience the realities themselves instead. Suk: Whoa! Just because I write using terminologies learnt from reading the Dhamma, I'm lost in non-stop conceptualizing and you who post so many messages everyday in 'american' and happen to be involved also in so-called 'practice', are not? ========== Robert: Have you ever tried that? Most prefer to spin on, playing with their vocabulary and concepts. Nama rupa, nama rupa. They are pleasant familiar sounds and half the time are just pleasant music, lullabyes to those who have become accustomed to hearing those sounds and "being right" about everything. Suk: You do believe quite strongly in 'control' and now you are saying that A. Sujin does too to some extent. Hmmm, I better ask her about it this Saturday. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #110950 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #11 sukinderpal Hi Robert E, Part 11, ======== Robert: Meditation is merely stopping the chatter after having some understanding and taking a good quite look at what is in front of one's nose; or perhaps even a bit closer. Suk: So in your meditation you have yet to come to experience dhammas and understand that in fact at any given moment there are only paramattha dhammas rising and falling away, each equally fleeting, insubstantial and non self, because otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with so called 'chatter'. ======== > S: Doubt will arise as long as we are not Sotapanna yet. But doubt is just another conditioned reality which when known incites a level of confidence one which is quite opposed to the idea suggested by you of "praying that our right view is correct". ;-) Robert: At this point we had better pray, because the situation seems almost hopeless. The air is so thick with spiritual concepts that the truth cannot even breathe. Suk: So if I don't meditate, I should at least pray? ;-) ========= > Rob: > What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as Right View? It must not be pretty. > > S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I can't accept. ;-) Robert: There is bad doubt and there is good doubt. Good doubt is when you realize that you are spinning your wheels and you open your eyes and take a look at what is really in front of your face. Suk: When panna arises, doubt is dealt with in the only way that it possibly can. What are you suggesting that I add onto this? ========== Robert: False view should be doubted. Suk: Not known by wisdom? ========= Robert: But if you don't examine your own views you will never see them for what they are. That goes for me, you and everyone. Instead of blind certainty in our own ignorance, we should investigate further and not shut our ears to any form of intelligence, not just those who already agree with us. Suk: You mean I should be acknowledging the intelligent and wise words coming forth from your writings here. ;-) But wouldn't it take wisdom to recognize wisdom? And could I make wisdom arise by wanting to have it and wishing? ========= Robert: When you open your eyes, you don't see "dhammas," you see objects, bodies, familiar things that you are attached to. Instead of going back to concepts, see your own attachment and clinging and start to discern that with sati so that there is some chance to let go. Suk: If I fail for the reason you state when it comes to such things as seeing and visible object, how can you expect me to succeed when it comes to 'attachment and clinging' and how could I be certain that it is in fact sati that is involved? ========= Robert: That is the path, not thinking and spouting and convincing yourself you are right all day, lost in your head and your spiritual version of self-view. Suk: I'll know it when I know it. But what you have described as being the path sounds not right to me. As you can see, this response is a record for DSG. I'll therefore probably let you have the last word if you wish. Metta, Sukinder #110951 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:03 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. kenhowardau Hi Robert and Nina, I think you have the quotes you requested (thanks to Robert K) on the subject of right understanding-as-leader. Then there was the matter of single cittas: ---------------- RE: > I'd also be happy to see a direct statement from the Buddha that he has a "single-citta" definition of the world, as you state above. If you show me where the Buddha said that directly, I will not reject it. I trust the Buddha, but I need to see his statement to that effect. Where shall I go to read that quote? ---------------- The way I understand the Dhamma, all of the Tipitaka is talking about the single-citta world. I am not good at providing quotes, however, and to find a sutta that will convince you might not be so easy. Have you seen the Sabba Sutta? It explains the six sense-worlds that arise one at a time. The Loka Sutta is another one. I am not sure, however, if they expressly *say* one at a time, so it might be possible for someone to read them as saying the six worlds (six cittas) arise together. Especially if that "someone" rejects the Abhidhamma and commentaries! ------------------ <. . .> RE: > I...did...not...say...that. I said that the path factors don't happen by themselves, which you can also disagree with, but I never said they only happen one at a time. Right Action, Right Understanding and Right Livelihood can certainly take place at the same time. Right Concentration and RightUnderstanding can take place at the same time. So...no, I didn't say that. I think you're so used to disagreeing with me, that you're not that picky about what you're disagreeing with me about. ------------------------------- I know what you mean about automatically disagreeing. But I disagree, (joke) I was not doing that. It is quite common for people to think the path is one of eight separate steps. ---------------------------------------- KH: >> Therefore you assume I must be talking about a one-fold path. >> RE: > No, I am saying you have a One-fold path, because *you* think that the only thing that can be done is to study Dhamma and understand it, and that none of the other steps of the path are "steps of the path," but events that happen to you willy-nilly while you're discussing or contemplating Dhamma, or perhaps between. Does Right Livelihood descend on you too? Or do you have to go out and get a job? ---------------------------------------- Damn, I knew there was something I forgot to do! But, to answer your question, Right Livelihood is just like any other conditioned dhamma; it is momentarily conditioned to arise, perform its functions, and cease. When it arises as samma-ajiva - a Path Factor - it is conditioned to do so by the co-arising Right Understanding. When it arises in other kusala cittas it is conditioned to do so by the citta itself. Going out and getting a job, on the other hand, is just a concept. BTW, thanks, Nina, for correcting my typo. I meant to say vitakka - not virati - was a synonym for thought. Virati (coincidentally) is abstention, isn't it? - as in Right Livelihood. Ken H #110952 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! egberdina Hi Rob E and Sukin, On 19 October 2010 14:42, sukinderpal wrote: > > Please allow me to comment on your interesting discussion. <....> > Rob: > > What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? > > S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this interfere > with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive is that it is > the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. > Perhaps perceive is not an appropriate word to use here, Sukin. It muddies the waters, IMO. Right and wrong, true and false are not a matter of perception. > ======== > Rob: > > Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is > correct? > > S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking now > for example, are real? What more do you need in order to be convinced that > there is only ever the present moment which can be known hence needed to be > object of Right Understanding? > > The present moment is not about true or false, wrong or right. That is why the concept of a Present Right Understanding of the Present is ridiculous. What is present is real, not true or false. > ======== > Rob: > > What if your view of right understanding is itself "wrong understanding?" > How would you eve find out? Wouldn't you be trapped in a downward spiral of > one akusala thought generating another, even though you are convinced you > are right? Couldn't you be trapped in false concepts? > > S: A good way of describing the mechanism. ;-) > But do you see any way out of this predicament other than careful study and > engaging in discussions with wise friends? > > What is the predicament, Sukin? Being right/wrong, or being un/real? And are your wise friends somehow unaffected by this predicament? Do any of you entertain the notion that there is some correspondence between being [real] and knowing [truth]? Why? > ======== > > > > Any good it would seem, must depend entirely on some Right View > > > accumulated in previous lives to condition a moment of understanding > > > "now" manifested then as being in spite of the wrong view held so far. > > > And when this happens would one then still insist on the kind of > > > intentional practice? > > > > Rob: Well, I think we have to pray that our view of Right View is > correct. Because if it is wrong and we keep clinging to it, and using it to > measure our own and others practice, we may wind up in a much worse place > next lifetime. > > S: Doubt will arise as long as we are not Sotapanna yet. But doubt is just > another conditioned reality which when known incites a level of confidence > one which is quite opposed to the idea suggested by you of "praying that our > right view is correct". ;-) > > ======= > Rob: > > What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and > doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as > Right View? It must not be pretty. > > S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I can't > accept. ;-) > > Sukin, Einstein didn't like the idea that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of "knowing" either. Instead he went in search of a Theory of Everything, much like you and yours have done. Down the track, he realised he had wasted his time. So may you and yours. Cheers Herman #110953 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 19 October 2010 15:27, sarah abbott wrote: > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s All, we're about to be on the move again - apologies for slow replies. > ====== > > > I sincerely and especially sympathise with you and Jon regarding the logistics of international relocation. And you may always safely assume that you both have my sympathies with regards to daily life :-) Cheers Herman #110954 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sammaa-sankappa. Was: Khun Bong's Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina, On 20 October 2010 01:36, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > I appreciate it that you read my book on Physical Phenomena. > > I appreciate that you have written that book, Nina, and how you have written it. In every sentence I can see the great care that you have taken in writing, down to the finest details. Your referencing is superb. For all of us, not only is it OK to take great care in what we do, as you have done, it is necessary :-) Cheers Herman #110955 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Robert & Ken - In a message dated 10/21/2010 4:52:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear Ken Ok who of these was burnt at the stake. Newton was a devout Christian, just what did the church do to him. And what did they do to Hubble ? ============================== Just on this single issue of burning, Bruno was burned to death. In the article at _http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm_ (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm) there is the following: Two other Italian scientists of the time, _Galileo_ (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Galileo.htm) and _Bruno_ (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Bruno.htm) , embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110956 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:43 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, RobK2, KenH, all, > > >RE: This is also very good. I think there can be different views of >whether this refers to instantaneous rising up of all the path >factors, or whether Buddha is saying that each path factor leads to >the other in a longer time frame, but it is a very good description >of >how the path factors form the conditions for further path >factors to >develop. Thanks! > > There is a teaching in Ptsm (of Sutta-Pitaka) that does say that at supramundane moment all 37 factors of awakening converge and do their functions. It is made by Citta + nana (TREATISE XXIII �" ON CONVERGENCE). > > The issue is, how is nana (wisdom, insight) that is going to cause that, achieved? > > How passive or active the effort (at listening, reading and considering) should be? What is considered to be lack of effort, what is considered to be optimal effort in developing it? > > Why can't one actively strive without thinking that "*I* do this/that" and do with the impersonal idea that "this is kusala". I believe in the good use of provisional reality, since that is all we are actually in touch with. It can be useful to know the breakdown of realities from Abhidhamma but careful study of that will not lead to enlightenment by itself. What needs to be experienced directly, in my opinion, to move forward in our deluded state, is correct use of our bodies and minds to understand conventional anicca, anatta and dukkha, and practices that develop the body and mind to be able to see things as they are. Meditation has a psychophysical effect which those who meditate will acknowledge. It's not about intellectual understanding. And even though we do have the underlying thought of self, everyone does. We read Dhamma with that thought, we discuss with that thought, and we meditate with that thought. The question is what practices will surpass that influence and move us towards critical mass of letting go and opening up to the true nature of samsara and citta. And to me, that is the magic combination of Dhamma study and understanding what the Buddha taught, discernment in everyday life to the extent one is able, and regular meditation to practice anapanasati and satipatthana. I think that combo has a chance of developing wisdom. All partial or distorted paths that were not taught by the Buddha will probably only have a partial result. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110957 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. truth_aerator Hi RobertE, RobertK2, KenH, all, >RE: I believe in the good use of provisional reality, since that is >all >we are actually in touch with... The question is what >practices will >surpass that influence and move us towards critical >mass of letting go Good ideas, RobertE. I wonder if the worldly training simile works for comparing it to development of more kusala in Dhamma. Person practices moves, punches the punching bag in order to become a better Martial Artist. At first he is clumsy, slow, and ineffective. After some time of practicing, he is much better, fast, effective and deadly. You probably seen these old movies where a guy (or a girl) gets bullied or raped, then practices martial arts and goes to kick his/her former bullies. A person comes to the gym and starts with little weights. Through proper training, little by little, that person will progress to lift heavier weights. It goes without saying that all actions, intentions, setting up of causes, was fully conditioned and not-self. Does the anatta disregard such happenings? Can a skill at kusala be developed without training it? Can lets say concentration be trained? All of this, all success, all failure is fully conditioned - but it does occur, doesn't it? After all, there are 3 higher trainings. Training in higher virtue, samadhi, wisdom (adhisila, adhicitta, adhipanna sikkha). With metta, Alex #110958 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:33 pm Subject: Re: Sangiitisutta 329, 6.22 and commentary. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > When this understanding has become firmer it can condition the > arising of direct awareness and understanding. Only when sati of the > level of satipa.t.thaana arises can there be a deeper understanding > of the characteristics of aniccaa, dukkha and anattaa. I like this review of the 5 [or 6] perceptions very much. I know you won't be able to answer until after the weekend, but how would you describe the difference between ordinary sati and sati of the level of satipatthana? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #110959 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:51 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Yet chldren are - in biology classes led to connect the dots; "see here are amino acids made in the lab , you can see how over time it is sure that cells and bacteria must sooner or later form, and so life beagan and here we are today." It is all very neat and seamless but misleading and leads to a materialistic view of the world. > Robert So do you think that physical life is a delusion and does not actually exist? And do you think that the physical forms we see and which are capable of interchanging form in rebirth are physical, or figments of the samsaric delusional mind? If they are physical, they have physical mechanisms for becoming, even though the spiritual forces in the cycle of DO may activate these mechanisms. If they are delusions of samsaric consciousness, then rebirth is not actually taking place, but is just a product of mind. I would not expect a scientist to believe in rebirth or anything else that we talk about unless they are Buddhists. Scientists do not believe in anything that is not mechanically based, and there is no such thing as an "evolution scientist" as opposed to some other kind of scientist. Evolution is established as an actuality for all scientists except a very small number who believe in other mechanisms with absolutely no proof. Someone who believes in an unproven hypothesis that has no factual basis is not a scientist at all. That understanding does not make us good or bad Buddhists, but there is a different basis for being a good or bad scientist. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110960 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #1 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Now would something which goes through the above process including the > development of the paramis through countless lifetimes suddenly require > Jhana which has nothing to do with Right View, to support? I don't think it is a sudden need for jhana. I think it would have been developed in conjunction with jhana in some of those countless lifetimes. There is no doubt that samatha is part of the path. Jhana is the most powerful development of samatha. Buddha also relates how samatha is developed to the point of jhana as part of the development towards the enlightenment factors in anapanasati sutta. > Is this not > underestimating the power of this particular kind of panna and lack of > appreciation the way in which it is developed? No it's not a lack of appreciation, it is a disagreement. Sorry that disagreeing with your point of view is seen as a "lack of appreciation." But that is only true if you are correct, and I don't think you are. I like the way you throw those things in - a big of a disparagement of the other person's point of view in the form of a Socratic question to push them towards answering in your favor. Are you a lawyer in daily life by any chance? :-) > Besides in Jhana the defilements are suppressed by power of the citta > one after the other, taking on the same subject. Going along with your > theory, vipassana arising subsequent to Jhana, would not then have the > same object as did the Jhana citta and therefore the defilements at the > time, would not in fact remain suppressed. So if this is the case, what > good then was the Jhana? Do you have an alternative explanation? Yes, I don't think it works that way. The state of formations being calmed by jhana is immensely powerful and remains a peaceful setting after exiting the state, according to anyone who describes this process. The cittas that arise in this setting are still within the realm of post-jhana and it is not the same as jumping back on your bicycle, but much more focused and peaceful. In addition, you have traces of the jhana object as well as the state in memory, and so mindfulness has quite a fertile field to arise in. I don't know the technicalities, but that is my general sense of the role that jhana plays in calming formations, giving peace and equanimity, and this continues after exiting jhana and contemplating it with mindful review. > As far as I'm concerned, the panna which is the N8FP can and *must* be > developed from the very beginning without ever shying away from any > akusala dhamma that happen to arise. Have you experienced any gaps so far, or has it been 100%? > It therefore at no time ever > requires the help of any other dhamma preceding it to clear the way so > to speak. It almost seems disrespect to the Buddha to claim that his > Path requires such a support as Jhana. I am sure that Buddha felt very bad about it too, since he recommended so many procedures that would lead to producing jhana in the monks he addressed. I guess he was just catering to their "jhana addiction" and didn't really want them in jhana at all. However, since he recognized that it was all the result of conditions, he must have been resigned to the fact that they would be in jhana whether he liked it or not, and taught them in that situation. Too bad they couldn't be in ordinary consciousness all the time, so their defilements would be available for vipassana review at all times. I am being a bit sarcastic because I think this is nonsense. Buddha included the jhanas in all his scenarios for enlightenment except the rare suttas where he noted that someone of highly developed understanding could reach enlightenment directly. That is not for the average person like you and me. But in general he included the jhanas and didn't seem to have anything but praise for the "pleasant abiding in the here and now" that you are so upset about. It seems to me that he included the jhanas as a fundamental part of the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110961 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #2 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 2, > > =========== > > > > > > Rob: How do you know they are wrong? Is it a matter of faith on your > part? > > > > S: The saddha would more or less be in direct proportion to the level > of right understanding which I can't claim to have much of. In any case, > you'd understand from what I've written above why I say what I say. But > I'll add that, given that samatha development starts with knowing the > difference between kusala and akusala in daily life, > > Robert: > and why is that? Does one really have to *start* with clear discernment > between kusala and akusala for samatha to develop? How do you define > samatha? > > Suk: Nobody is talking about "clear" discernment. The point is that it > must start "now". It does not matter whether or not there is any level > of understanding arise even, what is important is that rather than > thinking in terms of another time, place or activity, one understands > that there is no other time than this present moment for any kind of > development to occur. Thinking otherwise is to be going along with some > projected idea about development. > > Samatha as in 'calm' is any kind of kusala and this would include, dana, > sila, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is > development of kusala with one of the 40 subjects of meditation > including the kasinas, asubha, brahmaviharas and so on, which can lead > to Jhana of different levels. > > ============ > > > talk about trying to develop Jhana with no indication of any interest > in the former, seems like `ambition' lead by an ideal. This is not > knowing oneself / being in touch with reality. > > Robert: > Well certainly no one said there was "no interest" in kusala. But I > don't see "kusala" as a separate understanding from that which *is* kusala. > > Suk: What usually manifests here and other places is much talk about > practice and Jhana. Jhana is end result of much development and > therefore someone who has treaded this particular path would know how > hard it is. He would not only not throw the idea at others, but in any > conversation would certainly be very cautious about acknowledging > anything claimed by them. He'd be interested to know for example, if > whether the other person knows what attachment to sense pleasure is and > how often in a day that person experiences any level of calm. > > So yes, he'd be talking about daily life experiences and not about that > which in fact is the result of a very high level of development. In the > situation of Buddhists today, it would seem then that the more the talk > about Jhana, the greater the misunderstanding about what the development > of samatha really is. And so when you state above that Jhana *is* kusala > and feel justified therefore in talking and discussing about it, to me > it seems that in fact you won't get anywhere. I like the fact that you have taken a sudden practical view of jhana and what it represents. I like your description of how it might show in peacefulness in daily life, as well as whatever form it might take in the much feared and dreaded "formal meditation." {gasp} I agree it is a high attainment, and I am not claiming to have direct experience of it. However, we do talk about the path, and we do talk about enlightenment factors, and all sorts of fun things that not many people have experienced. You are even ready to judge the jhanas, so I guess you have a high level of expertise as well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110962 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #3 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 3, > > =========== > > > And with regard to the development of the 8FP, this in fact begins > with pariyatti without which patipatti can't arise. > > Robert: > > Why is that? > > Suk: You're not saying that it is possible to experience satipatthana > without having heard the Dhamma in any given lifetime are you? Obviously you'd have to know something about satipatthana and the path to engage with such a practice. But on the other hand, we probably can't really agree what satipatthana is. I'm still waiting for a good Abhidhamma definition. Maybe you can give me one? > ======== > > Robert: > > What if someone has an experience of correct practice before > understanding is full developed and that experience actually increases > the understanding. This idea that pariyatti and knowledge of discerning > what is kusala must be complete before anything else can develop is very > formulaic. > > Suk: This has been pointed out several times to you and for example > Alex, that no one here is talking about the need for perfect pariyatti > understanding before there can be patipatti. The issue is about what you > all take for practice, namely 'meditation', that this in fact is not > patipatti, and it is because of wrong understanding at the intellectual > level that you think it is so. We all have so much wrong understanding > accumulated and need to go on correcting our views at the intellectual > level. I've never had anyone make the case effectively that meditation is not the vehicle of practice that the Buddha approved. It's nowhere in sutta is it? And he did talk about the attainments within meditation to a bunch of meditating monks, so I think those who feel this way are themselves victims of wrong understanding. > There is of course some minimum required before patipatti can > begin to arise occasionally and when this begins to happen, then sure > the two levels of understanding support each other. But even an ariyan > would need to continue listening on and on and this itself is evidence > of the value of listening. It is necessary, but in most cases not sufficient. > There can be wholesome interest in listening to the Dhamma and > discussing it, but the same can't apply to any idea about meditation. Of course it can! This is what I'm talking about. I have said over and over that this is just prejudice and you can't say anything to back up this statement except that the idea of "practice" necessarily entails self-view and control. Not true! > In > the case of the former certain conventional actions would necessarily be > required such as opening a book or tape or the internet for discussion, > hence the need for some level of planning. However when it comes to > patipatti, this being about direct experience of dhammas and these > dhammas arising now, to think of another time and place is to get lost > in thought conditioned by ignorance and attachment as well as wrong > understanding. There is no other time and place in meditation. Meditation makes it possible to be present now. I don't know how you and others developed this skewed idea of meditation, but it is wrong. Buddha described all the practices he did for a reason, but you are ignoring it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110963 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:59 pm Subject: why I think Jhanas are important. truth_aerator Hi Robert, all, These are some of my thoughts as to why jhanas may be important for the path: 1) Jhana temporary suppress the hindrances, so that insight has a chance to do its job. Insight cannot occur in the same citta as akusala citta. 2) Jhana itself can be a direct experience to be investigated by insight. 3) It develops the skills required to permanently abandon the fetters. If you cannot abandon lobha & dosa for a short while, how can you abandon it PERMANENTLY? It makes sense to me that if one cannot temporary abandon something, then one definately can't permanently abandon it. With metta, Alex #110964 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:17 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, Haven't we been warned about discussing sex, politics and religion? They the surest ways of breaking up a good party. :-) ----------- > ROBERT: I did mean the Intelligent Design purveyors, how are they undermining education exactly? ------------ I could talk non-stop for a month on that topic; it has been the subject of many programmes on Australian public broadcasting stations. All of my adult life I have been on the political left and an atheist, and I have persistently argued against the Religious Right wherever possible. (Not that it has got me anywhere.) But in recent years, DSG and the Dhamma have shown me the puny, ephemeral, nature of ultimate reality. To get upset now over politics and religion would be a denial, and a refutation, of that Dhamma. ------------------------ <. . .> KH: >> Do you take it to mean sentient beings, or do you take it to mean the five khandhas? If it is the former, then you should be guided by science. If it is the latter, you should be guided by the Dhamma. >> RK: > let's look at the Tipitika and commentaries and we can clarify whether we should be guided by Science or Dhama on these matters: ---------------- You and I never tire of telling formal-meditators that satipatthana cannot be attained by looking. That doesn't apply only to meditation, it applies also to looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or looking through the fossil records. Nama and rupa will never be known that way. The only way of knowing nama and rupa is by having fortunate vipakka (hearing the true Dhamma) and massive accumulations of pariyatti. ---------------------------------- RK: > here are two passages from the Dhammapada atthakatha. From HEN to Princess to God to Pig, back to royalty and onward... <. . .> From Man to Flea to Deva (all in one week). <. . .> The Elder Tissa's Story ----------------------------------- I don't know how you could expect science to teach that sort of thing. Tracing the causes of vipakka is beyond the realm, not only of science, but also of satipatthana. Such matters are acinteyya (unknowable). They can be known only by an omniscient Buddha. For Dhamma-study purposes, the conventional world is best treated as a shadow, or a metaphor, not as a research laboratory. Similarly, our *behaviour* in the conventional world is a shadow of our ultimate behaviour. Therefore, I would like to behave sensibly and rationally in compliance with the best conventional sciences available. I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. (But there I go again!) :-) Ken H #110965 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi pt, On 20 October 2010 15:39, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > pt: In my experience, KenH is right. Whenever I decide to meditate, it's > mostly because I want to get something - more sati, panna, calm, whatever, > which is in essence nothing else but trying to control dhammas. There's a > hope though that during the actual meditation, this particular want will > fall away, and a moment of clarity can arise with awareness of present > moment, and so, free of want for something else. But this might be a fools > hope... > > Just some thoughts............. In my experience, it is only during effective meditation that there is mindfulness as well as no intention to control. The alternative to meditation is to either not be mindful and/or be occupied with arranging means towards ends ie daily life. You seem to have an upfront higher valuation for samsara being interrupted by spontaneous moments of sati, calm etc, than for sati, calm etc being interrupted by moments of samsara. I imagine that such an upfront valuation will have significant impact on how the "day's abiding" unfolds. Cheers Herman #110966 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:23 am Subject: On no-control. Why does it have to exclude formal meditation? truth_aerator Hello all, So 5 aggregates arise, change and cease due to causes and conditions. There isn't a cartoonish kind of control "let me experience only this, not that. Let only good things happen forever, etc". But what about setting causes to have specific results? You may not be able to wish the tree to appear in your backyard, but you can plant the seed, water the plant, guard it when it is growing, and in due time if all necessary conditions are met and assuming some obstructive condition doesn't happen, the tree will grow and mature. It is possible to say that even here, all actions are conditioned and there is no free will. But doesn't this action called "gardening" occur? Of course it does. Similar with lifting weights or being good at karate. Through development of skill and strength, and assuming all other conditions are met, there can be development. Of course all actions, intentions, all results and causes are fully conditioned and beyond any "one's" control. Why the same can't be said about the often talked path found in suttas and VsM where an ardent person goes into seclusion, develops virtue, develops samadhi and then develops wisdom to become an Arahant. It goes without saying that all success (in lets say meditation) and all failure is fully conditioned. However the activity does occur and suttas with VsM do talk about intentionality and effort. Why one can study without self view, and meditation apriory requires Self-View? If meditation was so bad, it wouldn't be mentioned so much in the suttas and VsM! With metta, Alex #110967 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:29 am Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #4 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 4, > > ======== > > > The apparent overlooking of the need for continued development through > listening and discussing and instead jumping on to a self-projected idea > about `practice' is clear indication therefore, of lack of that very > basic level of understanding needed as a starting point. No, once again you have mistaken "your view" for "the truth." > Robert: > > Well that's one way of looking at it. I've spent more time discussing > Dhamma than I have meditating at this point, and I'm not going to wait > until I'm dead before I "practice." Sorry about that, but your > projections as to what this means are incorrect. > > Suk: Even if you gave yourself 10 minutes a day for meditation and spent > say, 9 hours in discussions, this would still indicate lack of Right > Understanding. In "your view." In "my view" the opposite is true, so I agree that one of us is deluded about this, but surprisingly, I think it's you! :-) This is because you take what is not the Path for the Path. And you take your "idea of the Path" for "the Path itself." Have fun eating the menu! Did you know that breathing takes place at every moment with rare exceptions? It is actual. > Samvega or sense of urgency is the function of panna. And this panna > would not move away from the dhamma 'now' into ideas about time, place, > posture and some idealized object such as the breath. Your characterization of meditation as "ideas about time...etc.," is your own prejudiced illusion about the reality of meditation. It comes directly out of your philosophy. As Hamlet once said to Horatio "There are more things between Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The reality of meditation is "now," not "ideas about time." In fact the idea that meditation is about something in the future is the silliest thing I ever heard. It is an actual experience of now, rather than just thinking and chatting about it while lost in a whirl of concepts. > Sorry about that, > but yours is no sense of urgency. ;-) Sorry about it too, but sitting around feeling certain about intellectual ideas does not sound like someone running out of a "house on fire" to me! Maybe you should inspect the actual arrow of samsara rather than read a complex medical manual about "wounds caused by arrows." Hm...where is diagram 3b? > ======== > > > Given the above it should now be clear why I consider most Buddhists > today to be quite confused. ;-) Yes! It is because *you* are confused, and have no credible idea about what "most Buddhists today" are actually doing! I get it! > Robert: > I think it's a strange standpoint to take. First you attribute all sors > of ignorance, false motives and self-view to a bunch of people you have > never met, and then you conclude that your understanding is quite > superior. I think that's not only self-congratulatory but sloppy > thinking, and seems to have quite a bit of self-view in that presumption. > > Suk: First, my assessment is based on general principles and so I don't > actually need all that much information. Oh please. Your general principles are just one set of possible principles. Just because you feel certain about them, doesn't mean you are right. Yes, you need much more information. > Second, it is understood that I > base my opinion on those people that I have come across so far and that > these come from different teachers and traditions that have in all, a > large following. Really? Well maybe we should talk about your understanding of the various teachers and the examples of their students who you are critical of. You must have developed much more equanimity, detachment and wisdom than they have, or I'm sure you wouldn't be critical of their attainments. > Third, you can always bring up ideas by any of these > teachers and traditions to argue and prove me wrong. I, in my stupidity, accept the idea that various teachers have good and viable ways of practicing Dhamma. I don't believe there is one right way of experiencing the 8 NP. I think that people have different points of emphasis in a given lifetime. It may be that you are meant to read and study Dhamma this lifetime, but next lifetime will be all about jhana. At any time, each of us has something that conditions have given us to work on. I don't presume that others' approaches are wrong unless they directly contradict the Buddha's basic teachings. Buddha described those who study samatha and then vipassana later, the reverse and those who experience both together. He left a lot of room for different temperaments to work out the path in different ways. You should not be so dogmatic and so set in your ways that you are instantly dismissive of everyone else who is doing the Buddha's work. > Why don't you just do this instead of passing judgements such as the > above? There is nothing to be proud of ever, although sometimes there > may be some attachment to the idea of having some level of right > understanding. Or thinking we do. We should never be attached to our own view, or we will not learn anything new. Insight is defined as being an understanding that one has not had before, so there is still much to learn. > Of course I do have *all* defilements very much intact, > no different from what was there before I heard the Dhamma. You may be > reacting to the perception of my being stubborn and unaccommodating with > regard to the views expressed by others. I do think that is an obstacle to understanding, but I am also reacting to your set views, which I don't think are necessarily correct. > And I too sometimes react more > or less similarly. But still let us try to limit these kinds of > discussions to this matter of view alone... Well, I will follow your lead, if there is less comparison of your path to the path of the meditater in your next installment. :-) Always good to talk to you, even if it's a little bit like a wrestling match. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110968 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #5 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 5, > > ======== > > Question: Why is everyone so busy criticizing others and thinking > themselves correct and superior instead of examining their own > assumptions and ignorant attachments? > > Suk: How do you know that some kind of self-assessment doesn't happen in > a day including while arguing here? Are you perhaps seeking an > acknowledgement on our part that you are right and that we are wrong? > But how can you expect this to happen when the perception arises each > time, of you and everyone else being wrong? We have to challenge our own perceptions, based on the idea that most of them will be deluded. I don't dismiss your path. I think that understanding Dhamma is very important. I just don't appreciate having my path dismissed. I have room for both. You don't appear to. That is the definition of dogmatic, when you think that note for note you are right and everyone else is necessarily wrong. > ======== > > S: Well `thinking through' is not necessarily a virtue as much > attachment is likely involved, worse when wrong view ends up being > encouraged. > > Robert: > And what if none of that is taking place? You are making all of that up > in order to give yourself a scenario in which your understanding is > superior again. Great. > > Suk: You were suggesting that "I" think through and so the above was > actually about "me". Well, it is just terminology. Try "wise consideration" if that sounds better. I am talking about challenging and considering one's own view, rather than assuming it is right. > ======== > > Why I conclude that `self view' must necessarily be involved in any > thought to meditate or even in `trying to do good' for example? > > > > The imperative for any student of the Dhamma is to understand that > there are at any given moment only paramattha dhammas. > > Robert: > I think the imperative is to understand what is actually taking place, > rather than understand an abstract point. > > Suk: Mine was a statement expressing the need for right understanding at > the pariyatti level without which we continue insisting on activities > conditioned by wrong view, such as in the idea of meditation. One man's pariyatti is another man's delusional fixation. I am sorry that I can't take your knowledge on faith, but I don't agree with your view. Your > resistance to this shows that what you refer to when you say, > "understand what is actually taking place" must be in fact an > encouragement of some wrong view, one in much need of correction. Only because you are so sure your view is right, but that is your own opinion, which I don't think has considered all the possible flaws in your thinking. > ======== > > Robert: > > At any given moment we are incapable of understanding paramatha dhammas > because it is only known as a concept. > > Suk: This is what Phil for example keeps failing to get. Pariyatti is > not patipatti; however understanding is understanding, this is the > relationship between these two levels. Of course it must start with the > intellectual level and for a long time, this will be about all that can > be had. The problem is not so much that you fail to see this connection > and consequently opt for the paths that you each take, but rather that > you are in fact attracted to those paths and this obstructs seeing this > very important relationship between pariyatti and patipatti which we > keep explaining to you about. You may not be in a position to explain. You may be in a position to consider the truth just as I do. In fact you may not yet have the pariyatti you think you have. I hate to talk this way, but you are so certain that you are right and others are wrong that there is no other way to address it. > We keep pointing out to you the > difference, but you keep coming back as though you haven't heard what > we've said. Because your argument and explanation is not convincing. You seem to be committed to a certain dogma, one interpretion of Abhidhamma among many, which you think is the only one. That is a form of delusion as far as I can see. It is hard when this view is presented as a "given" as though one is an arahant, and expects others to swallow it whole without any convincing evidence. Despite this, I certainly appreciate you taking the time to try to correct me. I do learn something each time we "spar." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110969 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #6 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 6, > > ======== > > Robert: > > What we can know is what we actually see and experience, not this > abstract theory. Why not look into what is there and see that it is > anicca, anatta and dukkha? > > Suk: You've got it all backwards. Understanding the three > characteristics is the end result of an extremely long road of > development beginning with pariyatti. It's like you've not even begun to > understand the Dhamma! Your approach is backwards to me. Read and discuss for a few thousand lifetimes, before you open your eyes. That is absurd. > ======== > > Robert: > > That is superior to conceptualizing about "paramatha dhammas," cittas > and cetasikas all day long while living in a cloud of ignorance and not > even looking at what is in front of one's own face. > > Suk: Better no sati in a day and on hindsight acknowledge this, than to > be fooled into taking what is not sati for sati and the wrong path for > right. And while you judge pariyatti as mere "conceptualizing about > "paramattha dhammas," cittas and cetasikas", you move further away from > taking the initial step needed to tread upon the right Path. > > > ======= > > Not only this, but also that one citta arises at a time to experience > one object and this too, fallen away already. In other words, the object > of Right Understanding is always the present moment which is accompanied > by a corresponding level of detachment to the idea of self and control. > After all why would that which sees the present moment as being > conditioned already, intend then to be involved in certain activities in > the future aimed at this very kind of understanding? > > Robert: > > I'm interested in engaging in path activities now, not in the future, > and doing so is its own reward. You are the one who is busy > conceptualizing all day long about dhammas that you can't actually > experience, while I am practicing and looking at what I can experience. > > Suk: Statements all made by 'self' In your opinion. I don't agree. We both make statements. They are both statements. One doesn't have self more than the other. They are what they are. (not referring to conceit here), > which when actualize each time what it conceives of, becomes more > bloated. Your "now" *is* a conceiving about the future, What makes you say that? How would you know that? Wghy would you think that? Why have a strong opinion about someone else's experience? since it > involves some kind of 'doing'. That is your conceptual formula. I think it's nonsense that any form of doing is the result of self-view. > The only real "now" is that which appears > at this very moment and any Right Understanding of this would be of it > as having already fallen away. We don't actually experience that, do we? So it's just a story for you. Practice actually develops the capacity to see more clearly, rather than just spin ideas about it. > ========== > > Robert: > > We should practice the path from what we do experience, not from what we > should or would experience if we were arahants, which we are not. > > Suk: What about understanding intellectually what the arahats understand > and realizing that ours is wrong perception and wrong thinking > conditioned by wrong understanding? Would we then go along with these? > 'Where we are' is known never before this initial level of right > intellectual understanding, and when this happens, *this* is the > starting point. Failing this is indeed the reason why we continue > chasing our own projections. Of course we should study and understand and develop pariyatti. At the same time we should do all the other parts of the path that you are rejecting. To do one and not the other is foolish. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110970 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #7 epsteinrob Oh blessed omniscient Buddha, Sukin. More? Ahhhhhhhhhh......! Okay I am going to snap... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 7, > > ========= > > Robert: > > A conceptual framework is useless in awakening. What is important is to > look at your present level of understanding and see that your body is > anicca, getting older, can't hold onto it. That your friends will all be > gone when you die, and that it is better to let go, etc. When you are > confronted with real life events, as are sometimes discussed here, that > is much more real than spinning on about paramatha dhammas all day long. > Sometimes it seems that a parrot would have just as strong pariyatti if > he could just master the vocabulary. > > Suk: You keep making statements about things which require knowledge > about their characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. > For those of us who have begun to realize how much ignorance there is, > the inclination rightly, is to read more and discuss about these things. That's not my inclination, but to actually look at experience as it arises. I like reading too, don't get me wrong! > But you and others keep encouraging one another to instead go along with > own ideas projected. Take for example the idea of "letting go", any fool > will have his own idea as to what this is. Only someone stuck in concepts will fail to understand letting go. it is when something is no longer an object of clinging or craving and one no longer grasps after it. > Your asserting this here is > therefore a case of encouraging me to go along with the perverted > understanding that I may have. Is this not encouraging more ignorance, > attachment and wrong understanding and a case of one blind leading > another blind? I don't know. I believe in a bit of common sense. Letting go is letting go. Here is what the Buddha has to say about it: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.101.than.html "Whatever is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. And what is not yours? "The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Forms are not yours... Eye-consciousness is not yours... Eye-contact is not yours... Whatever arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. "The ear is not yours: let go of it... "The nose is not yours: let go of it... "The tongue is not yours: let go of it... "The body is not yours: let go of it... "The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Ideas are not yours... Intellect-consciousness is not yours... Intellect-contact is not yours... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. > ========== > > > In this regard the average Buddhist, those who believe in `doings' is > no different from those who believe in God. > > Robert: > Or those who believe in little tiny dhammas that they can't see; or > those that believe in Tinkerbell. > > Suk: "See", or is it "understand"? What do you think is understood and > at what level do you think we speak from? Don't we refer to such things > as seeing, hearing, hardness, thinking, sound and so on, things that all > of us make reference to all day anyway? It is you who is adding the > element of mystery into something so simple and straightforward! No one > is expected to have any penetrative understanding and the object even > for those quite advanced, is nimita of any one of these above mentioned > realities. > > The first step is to acknowledge that what we used to think for example, > as being "I who sees", that in reality "seeing is only an element". This > is pariyatti level of understanding and no one is claiming to have much > more than this. Indeed I sometimes get the impression from those who > meditate, that this is too ordinary for their taste and that they expect > something loftier from the practice that they engage in. Of course we all grapple with this understanding and we understand it to one extent or another. Some of us may even have some insight into anatta, or not. But we are all in the same boat. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110971 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #8 epsteinrob Hi again, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 8, > > ========== > > > The theist can't help attributing `control' to God, since he can't > find any other explanation seeing that the mechanism *must* exist > somewhere. He does not understand conditionality where `self' has no > place, and would therefore not even want to hear about such a thing. The > meditator is in a similar position, since he does not want to > acknowledge that this very moment there are only conditioned realities > rising and falling away beyond control, and instead gets caught up in > the idea of a `self' moving in time. > > Robert: > > That is nonsense. The meditator does not have a greater idea of self > moving through time than you do. We're all in the same boat, but you are > dreaming about a world where it is not so for you, just for everyone > else. Poor meditators! They actually experience their experience instead > of just thinking about it and categorizing it theoretically. A shame! > > Suk: Rright! I and others have always admitted to having only an > intellectual understanding, but you are claiming to have direct > understanding Uh...no I'm not. I'm just claiming that meditation creates conditions for understanding and trains more sati and samatha. But no direct seeing, that's too much. > all by virtue of being engaged in 'meditation'. And you go > on to protect all those other people who claim to do similarly and rest > satisfied with just that, without ever seeing need to question the mode > of observation that goes on during the time. So who in fact is fooling > himself here? Well I'm not trying to make claims for everyone in the whole world, any more than I can guarantee that everyone on dsg is understanding Dhamma with right view. I'm talking about an issue with you, and we are discussing it, that's all. > ========= > > He thinks in terms of future results coming from what he does now or > will do later. > > Robert: > > No he does not. He meditates because it is his path, and it is very good > when he does. It is kusala in a tangible and concrete way. > > Suk: By virtue of what?!! By virtue of being engaged with Dhamma in this way. > ======== > > Robert: > > There is no thought of the future but only the experience of now. > > Suk: Now is now. This has nothing to do with trying to be present, the > determining factor being the arising of panna of some level to know > something about the present moment, and is quite opposed to being > involved in ideas about past and future. So apparently this is all about > gradual development of understanding, again beginning with pariyatti. In > this comes the idea of saccannana, which is firm intellectual > understanding about the 4 NTs. This manifest as not moving away from > this present reality whatever it is, knowing that this is the object > that must be studied. It is the kind of understanding which leads to > satipatthana arising more often. Well nothing wrong with developing that in meditation, as far as I'm concerned. > Therefore so long as one keeps thinking in terms of another time, place > and object, Well one doesn't. > this saccannana understanding will not arise and therefore > one shouldn't expect to have satipatthana. The now would in fact not be > now, and wherever one goes to meditate, one is never there, so to speak. Luckily that is not what actually happens, but thanks for the warning based on your own imaginings and concepts. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110972 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #10 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 10, I think you skipped over part 9. :-) > ========= > > Rob: > > What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? > > > > S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this > interfere with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive > is that it is the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. > > Robert: > Of course you perceive that! You are looking through glasses that tell > you "you are right." When have you challenged your view and really > examined it critically? Never? > > Suk: When doubt arises and there is some understanding of this, this > leads back to the very basic premise from which I come, which is that > there is only the present moment to be known. A moment of ehi pasiko here? > > ======== > > Rob: > > Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is > correct? > > > > S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking > now for example, are real? > > Robert: > Well one needs to look and see if they know what that means, not just > say the words. > > Suk: It looks like you believe that for those of us who don't meditate, > sati can't arise during everyday activities and what we end up with is > just 'talk'. If it does arise, that is good. I think meditation maximizes such possibility. If you talk about that, I will certainly accept it. But it seems that everyone is content to argue doctrine and criticize views that are not in one's own dogma. > But remember, there is only the present moment, and this is > the background understanding from which direct study can ever arise. That is true, and that is also good. > ======== > > > What more do you need in order to be convinced that there is only ever > the present moment which can be known hence needed to be object of Right > Understanding? > > Robert: > Have you ever seen the present moment as it actually is, or is it just a > concept? If the latter, what makes you think you know what you are > talking about? > > Suk: And the reason for your questioning my understanding is because I > don't see the need to meditate....? No, because I don't accept that doctrine is the same as understanding. I would love to hear you talk about your own understanding, rather than make general statements about what is right and what is wrong on some conceptual level. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110973 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #9 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 9, Ah! Part 9 after part 10 - in fact I appreciate this change from "regular order." > > ========== > > Robert: > > But you can make up whatever negative story about your abstract > meditator that you like, since it is your own vain thought-creation. > Don't you realize how arrogant it is to think you know something about > another person's practice who you have not even spoken to? It's a fairy > tale you tell yourself to feel good about your own self-view and > expectations of your own path. > > Suk: But it is alright for you to go on to defend other meditaters even > though you have no more information about them than I do? But let's just > talk about you then. Really I am defending meditation as a practice, not "all meditators." I just don't think you know that they are "all wrong." > Why is it that the mindfulness which arises during your meditation > practice, this can't arise now while reading and discussing? If it does that is great. I accept Dhamma study and discussion as extremely important. I never denied their importance. I just don't think they are usually sufficient to give someone an actual experience of what is being read and studied. > ========== > > But there is no one to receive any fruits, so why are such ideas > necessitated? The answer is, "self view". That's a straw man. > Robert: > > You have made up the story that they are necessitated! They are not! > > Suk: You say that it is panna then? Please explain why it would be. Never said that. > ========= > > > Rob: What if you have an illusion of result based on your own chosen > idea of "right understanding" of Dhamma as you define it? > > > > S: If there is an idea of a self who is reading / discussing in order > that panna will arise at some point, sure this can condition an illusion > of result. Then why indicate meditation as a wrong activity? Why not just talk about the problem of self-view in all our activities? > Robert: > And it will, and does, very close to home... > > Suk: You can read my thoughts? Not yet. :-) Just teasing. > ========= > > > However this will not be due to what you state as "my chosen idea of > right understanding", being that it is one which demands attention to > what the reality is "now". > > Robert: > > No it doesn't. It demands non-stop conceptualizing. K. Sujin has said in > a number of quotes to stop paying so much attention to terminology and > the terms like nama and rupa and experience the realities themselves > instead. > > Suk: Whoa! > > Just because I write using terminologies learnt from reading the Dhamma, > I'm lost in non-stop conceptualizing and you who post so many messages > everyday in 'american' and happen to be involved also in so-called > 'practice', are not? Sorry, just tired of having the assumption made that any Dhamma conversation is leading to pariyatti, but that anyone else's Dhamma activities are akusala. I am saying that such study is just as worthy of wise reflection as meditating or anything else. Ha ha, I liked you saying that I am posting in "American." I didn't know we had our own separate language. That was good! > ========== > > Robert: > > Have you ever tried that? Most prefer to spin on, playing with their > vocabulary and concepts. Nama rupa, nama rupa. They are pleasant > familiar sounds and half the time are just pleasant music, lullabyes to > those who have become accustomed to hearing those sounds and "being > right" about everything. > > Suk: You do believe quite strongly in 'control' and now you are saying > that A. Sujin does too to some extent. Hmmm, I better ask her about it > this Saturday. ;-) What she has been saying in quotes from Nina lately, as I understand it, is that one should be less concerned with the terms used than the experiences they refer to. Understand that the word "nama" is not the experience, and that all the explanations are there to allow understanding of anatta so that detachment arises. Please do ask her about this, but don't tell her where I live. :-) And please tell A. Sujin that I very much like her book. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110974 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! #11 epsteinrob Hi Sukin. Wow, I am getting powerful vipaka for posting too much!!! Part 11...? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > Part 11, > > ======== > Robert: > > Meditation is merely stopping the chatter after having some > understanding and taking a good quite look at what is in front of one's > nose; or perhaps even a bit closer. > > Suk: So in your meditation you have yet to come to experience dhammas > and understand that in fact at any given moment there are only > paramattha dhammas rising and falling away, each equally fleeting, > insubstantial and non self, because otherwise you wouldn't have a > problem with so called 'chatter'. I mean outside chatter, but of course whatever arises is fine. > ======== > > S: Doubt will arise as long as we are not Sotapanna yet. But doubt is > just another conditioned reality which when known incites a level of > confidence one which is quite opposed to the idea suggested by you of > "praying that our right view is correct". ;-) > > Robert: > At this point we had better pray, because the situation seems almost > hopeless. The air is so thick with spiritual concepts that the truth > cannot even breathe. > > Suk: So if I don't meditate, I should at least pray? ;-) Pray that we don't exchange 12 or 15 messages every day! > ========= > > Rob: > > What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong > view, and doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as > Dhamma and as Right View? It must not be pretty. > > > > S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I > can't accept. ;-) > > Robert: > There is bad doubt and there is good doubt. Good doubt is when you > realize that you are spinning your wheels and you open your eyes and > take a look at what is really in front of your face. > > Suk: When panna arises, doubt is dealt with in the only way that it > possibly can. What are you suggesting that I add onto this? No, panna will do fine. :-) > ========== > > Robert: > > False view should be doubted. > > Suk: Not known by wisdom? If possible, that is a good idea. > ========= > > Robert: > > But if you don't examine your own views you will never see them for what > they are. That goes for me, you and everyone. Instead of blind certainty > in our own ignorance, we should investigate further and not shut our > ears to any form of intelligence, not just those who already agree with us. > > Suk: You mean I should be acknowledging the intelligent and wise words > coming forth from your writings here. ;-) Only if you can understand "American." Most people do not! > But wouldn't it take wisdom to > recognize wisdom? And could I make wisdom arise by wanting to have it > and wishing? I think Phil said recently that there is good wanting of wisdom that is kusala... > ========= > > Robert: > > When you open your eyes, you don't see "dhammas," you see objects, > bodies, familiar things that you are attached to. Instead of going back > to concepts, see your own attachment and clinging and start to discern > that with sati so that there is some chance to let go. > > Suk: If I fail for the reason you state when it comes to such things as > seeing and visible object, how can you expect me to succeed when it > comes to 'attachment and clinging' and how could I be certain that it is > in fact sati that is involved? I don't know. To me, it's just a question of doing what we can and keep developing. > ========= > > Robert: > > That is the path, not thinking and spouting and convincing yourself you > are right all day, lost in your head and your spiritual version of > self-view. > > Suk: I'll know it when I know it. But what you have described as being > the path sounds not right to me. > > As you can see, this response is a record for DSG. I'll therefore > probably let you have the last word if you wish. Well it would be impolite not to say anything! :-) I will say that I appreciate your effort in communicating this way. Couldn't have been easy to write all those posts! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110975 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:20 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. I will be brief. Sukin has tired me out, conventionally speaking... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert and Nina, > > I think you have the quotes you requested (thanks to Robert K) on the subject of right understanding-as-leader. Then there was the matter of single cittas: > > ---------------- > RE: > I'd also be happy to see a direct statement from the Buddha that he has a "single-citta" definition of the world, as you state above. If you show me where the Buddha said that directly, I will not reject it. I trust the Buddha, but I need to see his statement to that effect. Where shall I go to read that quote? > ---------------- > > The way I understand the Dhamma, all of the Tipitaka is talking about the single-citta world. I am not good at providing quotes, however, and to find a sutta that will convince you might not be so easy. > > Have you seen the Sabba Sutta? It explains the six sense-worlds that arise one at a time. The Loka Sutta is another one. I am not sure, however, if they expressly *say* one at a time, so it might be possible for someone to read them as saying the six worlds (six cittas) arise together. Especially if that "someone" rejects the Abhidhamma and commentaries! I don't reject Abhidhamma and commentaries! I haven't had enough chance to read commentaries, but I'm very interested. I just don't accept the theories you espouse as a fait d'accompli that's all. Like the Kalamas, I am a bit agnostic on things I haven't experienced. > ------------------ > <. . .> > RE: > I...did...not...say...that. I said that the path factors don't happen by themselves, which you can also disagree with, but I never said they only happen one at a time. Right Action, Right Understanding and Right Livelihood can certainly take place at the same time. Right Concentration and Right Understanding can take place at the same time. So...no, I didn't say that. I think you're so used to disagreeing with me, that you're not that picky about what you're disagreeing with me about. > ------------------------------- > > I know what you mean about automatically disagreeing. But I disagree, (joke) I was not doing that. It is quite common for people to think the path is one of eight separate steps. Fair enough. No, I don't feel that way, although Buddha does say in terms of some relations that one factor in particular will lead to another one in particular. > ---------------------------------------- > KH: >> Therefore you assume I must be talking about a one-fold path. > >> > > RE: > No, I am saying you have a One-fold path, because *you* think that the only thing that can be done is to study Dhamma and understand it, and that none of the other steps of the path are "steps of the path," but events that happen to you willy-nilly while you're discussing or contemplating Dhamma, or perhaps between. Does Right Livelihood descend on you too? Or do you have to go out > and get a job? > ---------------------------------------- > > Damn, I knew there was something I forgot to do! Ha ha. Well Buddha will forgive you. > But, to answer your question, Right Livelihood is just like any other conditioned dhamma; it is momentarily conditioned to arise, perform its functions, and cease. > > When it arises as samma-ajiva - a Path Factor - it is conditioned to do so by the co-arising Right Understanding. When it arises in other kusala cittas it is conditioned to do so by the citta itself. > > Going out and getting a job, on the other hand, is just a concept. > > BTW, thanks, Nina, for correcting my typo. I meant to say vitakka - not virati - was a synonym for thought. Virati (coincidentally) is abstention, isn't it? - as in Right Livelihood. Well, I like vitakka. I'll end on that note, because the more vitakka, the more understanding, so perhaps I can use a bit more! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110976 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert & Ken - > > In a message dated 10/21/2010 4:52:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > rjkjp1@... writes: > > Dear Ken > Ok who of these was burnt at the stake. Newton was a devout Christian, > just what did the church do to him. And what did they do to Hubble ? > ============================== > Just on this single issue of burning, Bruno was burned to death. In > the article at > _http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm_ > (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm) there is the following: > > Two other Italian scientists of the time, _Galileo_ > (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Galileo.htm) and _Bruno_ > (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Bruno.htm) , embraced the Copernican > theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the > hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to > even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless > and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar > systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational > beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno > was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. > Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," > he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to > renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to > imprisonment for the remainder of his days. Thanks Howard must admit I have neaver heard of Bruno before. I could add that Galileo's life imprisonment was house arrest at his home in Arcetri. robert #110977 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:55 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > Yet chldren are - in biology classes led to connect the dots; "see here are amino acids made in the lab , you can see how over time it is sure that cells and bacteria must sooner or later form, and so life beagan and here we are today." It is all very neat and seamless but misleading and leads to a materialistic view of the world. > > Robert > > So do you think that physical life is a delusion and does not actually exist? Evolution is established as an actuality for all scientists except a very small number who believe in other mechanisms with absolutely no proof. Someone who believes in an unproven hypothesis that has no factual basis is not a scientist at all. That understanding does not make us good or bad Buddhists, but there is a different basis for being a good or bad scientist. > ++++ Dear Robert Could you say why you think based on the several hundreds of posts on dsg which I mention rupa(materiality) you have assumed I think physical life is a delusion? You see the Intelligent Design proponents point out that ' yes evolution has occured, but science has not proved that it resulted from only material, chance mixing of chemicals' yet that is what scientists in the field of evolution have claimed and this is what is propagated in textbooks. Could I ask how much have you studied evolution and the claims of scientist regarding lifes begininings? From my earlier post, perhaps you could comment on these quoets from leading scientist in the field of evolution (btw you think 'evolution scientists' is a term that can never be used?(why?) But is calling them scientist in teh filed of evolution allowable?) Scientists, despite their metaphysically neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was a chance occurence. The big bang occured (no one knows why or what were the conditions ) and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter came together by gravity to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form amino acids. These then by haphazard mixing formed complex proteins, which later formed DNA, and then somehow by some amazing set of chance occurences, bacteria. Life all arose out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why? Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, pp.344-345). Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). Do you think the veiws expressed by these top scientists (but not 'evolution scientists' even though all there writings and research are on evolution?)are any more speculative than Christian ideas about lifes beginnings? Surely both views are wrong by Buddhist standards, what the Christians ask for is acknowledgement that the debate is one over worldview, not over scientific evidence . Robertk #110978 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:15 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert K, > > Haven't we been warned about discussing sex, politics and religion? They the surest ways of breaking up a good party. :-) > > ----------- > > ROBERT: I did mean the Intelligent Design purveyors, how are they undermining education exactly? > ------------ > > I could talk non-stop for a month on that topic; it has been the subject of many programmes on Australian public broadcasting stations. All of my adult life I have been on the political left and an atheist, and I have persistently argued against the Religious Right wherever possible. (Not that it has got me anywhere.) ++++++++ Dear Ken I must be rememebering wrongly but did you once post saying a buddhist couldn't be on the right wing or support the conservative party? maybe I dreamed it, anyway I am very much conservative politically. Maybe that means I am not a real buddhist ? > > > ---------------------------------- > RK: > here are two passages from the Dhammapada atthakatha. > > From HEN to Princess to God to Pig, back to royalty and onward... > <. . .> > From Man to Flea to Deva (all in one week). > <. . .> > The Elder Tissa's Story > ----------------------------------- > > I don't know how you could expect science to teach that sort of thing. Tracing the causes of vipakka is beyond the realm, not only of science, but also of satipatthana. Such matters are acinteyya (unknowable). They can be known only by an omniscient Buddha. __ Actually nowhere did I suggest that science should teach that. But if say the dominant religion of USA was buddhism and buddhists started promoting the Tipitaka or suggesting that all life was not formed by chance occurences of chemicals mixing togeher, or that kamma was a factor etc then you would find the forces of science arrayed against it just as much as they are against Intelligent Design proponents. Buddhism escapes widespread condemnation in this area because it is under the rader and because well-meaning buddhists like to think science and Dhamma are in perfect agreement.When they look at evolution ideas they conveniently ignore the ideas of evolution scientists (is that term really so bad?) that disagree with buddhist views, and even sometimes jump in on the side of scientists against the supposed evil christians. > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. ++++++++++ I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who were and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview known in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is law. No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never did since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism at school. robert #110979 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:12 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Robert K, --------- RK: > I must be rememebering wrongly but did you once post saying a buddhist couldn't be on the right wing or support the conservative party? maybe I dreamed it, anyway I am very much conservative politically. Maybe that means I am not a real buddhist ? -------- That does sound like something I would say (unfortunately). I vaguely remember it. I have always found that socialism and capitalism differed in their definitions of right and wrong (or, as we would say, kusala and akusala). When I was young, there were still traces of socialism in politics (unlike today unfortunately) and people protested against the Vietnam war, for example, purely on the basis of that it was morally wrong. In particular, they said it was wrong to kill defenceless civilians just to stop them from becoming communists. The conservatives disagreed; their maxim was "Better dead than red!" * So there was a very basic disagreement over the meaning of right and wrong, and it divided communities and families. The same two divisions emerged on a wide variety of issues. On questions of minority rights, taxation law, social welfare, foreign aid, environmental protection, gun legislation, and so on, the same two opposing groups emerged every time. Basically, there had to be two different understandings of right and wrong. But to get back to the question: if I am right about this division, does it have any bearing on whether someone can or cannot be a good Buddhist? There is that famous quote from K Sujin where she said it was more important to know nama from rupa than kusala from akusala. So I wonder if that has any bearing on our discussion. I think it probably does, and maybe right-wingers can be good Buddhists after all. Ken H * To be fair: not all conservatives meant it quite that way. #110980 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:23 pm Subject: Today is Vap Poya Observance Day! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Vap Poya day is the full-moon of October. This holy day celebrates the end of the Bhikkhu's three months rains retreat and marks the Kathina month of robes , where lay people donate a set of robes to the Sangha. This also celebrates the day that Buddha began to teach the Abhidhamma ! The Buddha descending from the Tusita Level after having spent a rains retreat there explaining the Abhidhamma to the assembled devas during a single three months long speech! His biological mother Mah amaya, who died 7 days after his birth, and was reborn there as a deva, was present. He is followed down by the deva rulers Sakka and Mah a-Brahma. More about this Higher Abhidhamma Science: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html More about the Kathina Ceremony: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Kathina_Ceremony.htm The Kathina Ceremony of giving robes to the Maha-Sangha and receive blessing merit thereby! On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards Nibbana: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! The True Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html For the 2010 Calendar of Uposatha Observance Days: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/various/Poya.Uposatha.Observance_days.2010.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Vap Poya Observance Day! #110981 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! sukinderpal Hi Herman and Robert E, ========= > > Rob: > > What if your understanding is wrong and you don't realize it? > > > > S: Then it's wrong and I don't realize it. But why should this interfere > > with any discussions that I engage in? So far what I perceive is that it is > > the understandings expressed by others which are wrong. Herman: > Perhaps perceive is not an appropriate word to use here, Sukin. It muddies > the waters, IMO. Right and wrong, true and false are not a matter of perception. S: Wrong as in wrong understanding. But yes, this would only be known by Right Understanding and is why I was cautious and said that it was my own perception, as in own interpretation of the experience. ========= > > Rob: > > Do you have any evidence that your view of "right understanding" is > > correct? > > > > S: What evidence do you need for the fact that seeing now and thinking now > > for example, are real? What more do you need in order to be convinced that > > there is only ever the present moment which can be known hence needed to be > > object of Right Understanding? Herman: > The present moment is not about true or false, wrong or right. That is why > the concept of a Present Right Understanding of the Present is ridiculous. > What is present is real, not true or false. S: Let's leave out true or false. There is only ever the present moment which is that a citta experiencing an object. Some cittas are results and some are causes and others are neither. Of those that are causes, that which is rooted in ignorance stands in direct contrast to those rooted in wisdom. Why can't the one be said to be wrong and the other right especially when taking into account the perception, attention, thinking, concentration etc. accompanying each instance of these? ========= > > Rob: > > What if your view of right understanding is itself "wrong understanding?" > > How would you eve find out? Wouldn't you be trapped in a downward spiral of > > one akusala thought generating another, even though you are convinced you > > are right? Couldn't you be trapped in false concepts? > > > > S: A good way of describing the mechanism. ;-) > > But do you see any way out of this predicament other than careful study and > > engaging in discussions with wise friends? > > Herman: > What is the predicament, Sukin? Being right/wrong, or being un/real? And are > your wise friends somehow unaffected by this predicament? Suk: Believe me, I wasn't thinking in terms of being in the right company, but the general principle of the need for hearing the Dhamma, association with the wise, wise attention and practice in accordance with the dhamma. I wasn't saying that I am in the fortunate situation, but that this is what I believe to be the only mechanism by which any wrong understanding can be corrected and right view developed. ========== Herman: > Do any of you entertain the notion that there is some correspondence > between being [real] and knowing [truth]? Why? S: We'll leave the others out. Seeing now is a conditioned reality, this is known for what it is by different levels of understanding. If pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha does not arise, any statement about the experience must necessarily be result of wrong understanding. But when understanding does arise, what is known about the experience would be either that it is a reality distinct from concepts, a dhamma, conditioned, anicca, dukkha or anatta etc. I'm not quite sure what you meant, but if you disagree with the above and think that what is understood about any experience is something else altogether, then I think it must be some theory of your own that you are coming from. ========= > > What kind of rebirth is given to someone who is attached to wrong view, and > > doesn't even question their view, and promotes it to others as Dhamma and as > > Right View? It must not be pretty. > > > > S: What you are suggesting is that I should have `doubt', and this I can't > > accept. ;-) > > > > > Sukin, Einstein didn't like the idea that uncertainty is a fundamental > characteristic of "knowing" either. Instead he went in search of a Theory of > Everything, much like you and yours have done. Down the track, he realised > he had wasted his time. So may you and yours. S: You can't be expecting me to learn from Einstein's mistakes can you? (Should anyone even judge such things as a "mistake" given especially that no one knows what all that goes on in another person's mind?) Unlike Einstein, I'm not motivated to seek a unified theory or theory of everything. My attraction to Dhamma is not that it satisfies a thirst for such a theory, but indeed that it explains my experiences that arise from moment to moment. Yes, I do end up often 'applying' the principles taught in the Dhamma to different concepts; however this is not due to a craving to find an explanation. In fact sometimes I judge such kind of thinking as missing the point, since after all they have nothing to do with how Right Understanding is developed.... Metta, Sukinder #110982 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/21/2010 6:17:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert K, Haven't we been warned about discussing sex, politics and religion? They the surest ways of breaking up a good party. :-) ----------- > ROBERT: I did mean the Intelligent Design purveyors, how are they undermining education exactly? ------------ I could talk non-stop for a month on that topic; it has been the subject of many programmes on Australian public broadcasting stations. All of my adult life I have been on the political left and an atheist, and I have persistently argued against the Religious Right wherever possible. (Not that it has got me anywhere.) ----------------------------------------------- Why are their beliefs any more a matter of mere belief than your beliefs? You believe in, but do not know as fact, rebirth, heavens and hells, disembodied existence in certain realms, mere study and thinking leading to the uprooting of defilements, and somehow a buddha appearing in the world whenever the teachings of the presumed prior buddha having died out, and much more. ------------------------------------------------ But in recent years, DSG and the Dhamma have shown me the puny, ephemeral, nature of ultimate reality. ----------------------------------------------- Nibbana is ephemeral? And puny? (And have you been SHOWN truth, or simply adopted a set of beliefs?) -------------------------------------------- To get upset now over politics and religion would be a denial, and a refutation, of that Dhamma. ------------------------ <. . .> KH: >> Do you take it to mean sentient beings, or do you take it to mean the five khandhas? If it is the former, then you should be guided by science. If it is the latter, you should be guided by the Dhamma. >> RK: > let's look at the Tipitika and commentaries and we can clarify whether we should be guided by Science or Dhama on these matters: ---------------- You and I never tire of telling formal-meditators that satipatthana cannot be attained by looking. That doesn't apply only to meditation, it applies also to looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or looking through the fossil records. Nama and rupa will never be known that way. -------------------------------------------- They will be known, thus, by what? By ideas and thinking and belief? People study different things, think in different ways, and hold different beliefs. Lots of them truly believe that "they know"! You are one such. You do not differ. You presume, as not mere beliefs on your part, a sure knowing of truth. What makes some of them members of the doctrinaire "religious right" and you an enlightened, religious leftist? ----------------------------------------- The only way of knowing nama and rupa is by having fortunate vipakka (hearing the true Dhamma) and massive accumulations of pariyatti. ------------------------------------------ Ahh, "fortunate"! Well, "good luck" to you!! ;-) And "massive accumulations of pariyatti" amounts to aeons of ideas and thinking. That, so far as I know, is not the whole of the Buddha's practice teachings. ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- RK: > here are two passages from the Dhammapada atthakatha. From HEN to Princess to God to Pig, back to royalty and onward... <. . .> From Man to Flea to Deva (all in one week). <. . .> The Elder Tissa's Story ----------------------------------- I don't know how you could expect science to teach that sort of thing. Tracing the causes of vipakka is beyond the realm, not only of science, but also of satipatthana. Such matters are acinteyya (unknowable). They can be known only by an omniscient Buddha. For Dhamma-study purposes, the conventional world is best treated as a shadow, or a metaphor, not as a research laboratory. Similarly, our *behaviour* in the conventional world is a shadow of our ultimate behaviour. Therefore, I would like to behave sensibly and rationally in compliance with the best conventional sciences available. I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. ---------------------------------------- Why so wishy-washy, Ken? LOL! ---------------------------------------- (But there I go again!) :-) ------------------------------------------ Yep, speaking from your seat of true knowing. ;-) ------------------------------------------ Ken H ============================= With metta, Howard Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #110983 From: whinney@... Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:02 pm Subject: present moment/ phil/depression a_true_lotus [Phil] >> *This cutting off of a feeling, I would not know how to do, > > Ph: I'll write more later, and perhaps ask others to join, because > it's always interested me something Sarah said in a recorded talk, > but not cutting off "of",but cutting off "at", and not a forceful > cutting off, but just dropping the process of proliferation that > starts arising from pleasant or unpleasant feelings. OK. > >>exactly. I do my meditation in 20 minute segments, and by the > second segment, I kind of go to a place in my mind that seems above > the chatter, and where I can get some peace of mind. I think it's > called "Blissing out" and not desirable, but I'll keep it, as it is > often the best part of my day. > > Ph: I do this too. I think it's wise. The mind is so accustomed to > feeding on sense objects, if it learns to feed on pleasant > sensations during meditation, it is healthier food. People who > disagree with this have good Pali Canon (the Buddha's teaching) > text-based reasons for doing so, but my main interest is in being > happy and not doing harmful things, and the deeper, technically > correct teachings that they point out don't deter me from those > goals. Yes, I will explain why this is so important to me and my meditation practice but I'll give as short a background as possible. I recently had a blood test that shows I have a rare disease called "central hypothyroidism". The psychiatric symtoms are anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder and disabling insomnia. There are many other symptoms but I won't go into the ones that are not so related to meditation. Basically, what I have been doing, is meditating, doing Mindfulness CDs and trying any way I can - vigorous exercise - everything to help with my depression. Now I know why those things do not work well. I have almost no thyroid in my body, and it is no wonder I am depressed and have pathological insomnia. Thyroid hormone is as important to the body, as, say, estrogen and testosterone. Imagine life without testosterone or estrogen! Then, as I fail with all of these measures, I feel even more hopeless. All the while, I have not been failing, I most likely have a tumor on my pituitary. Something real, something people can now understand. When you say "I'm depressed" all types of not so helpful responses, but if you say, "I have a tumor in my head, and I feel listless" then it takes on legitimacy. OK, well, how this relates to meditation, is that even though I'm now taking thyroid hormone, I may struggle with hypothyroidism, and may still have out of control emotions due to my condition. I think that with any chronic illness, sitting helps the illness be an illness and not turn so quickly into "suffering". I also think, that if my emotions are out of control, to not see myself as some type of meditation failure and just meditate without any goal in mind. What is generally done next is that you get an MRI, and then when they find the tumor which is 99% benign, they remove it surgically. While I'm not happy about this latter fact, I am ebullient in that now I finally have an answer that makes sense for the problems I've been experiencing for years. I can finally tell people something "real" and that they can understand - a tumor! This is really going to help my meditation and my meditation is really going to help this! I can't remember who on the list, I"m sorry, but said something about not trying to outsmart a biochemical part of depression but the biochemicals that lead to depression are rather vague, and often not taken seriously, or as something "real" by others. What I have been doing, most likely for the past 5 years or so, is try to outsmart depression, and I have never succeeded for long. How could I, with no thyroid in my body. > More later. How was Hawaii? Did you go yet? We're not going until February, in the depths of the Minnesota winter. > > Metta, > > Phil Thanks Phil. Best, Ari #110984 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:04 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma kenhowardau Hi Howard and Robert K, Thank you, Howard, for acknowledging my arguments - even if it was to disagree with them. I was disappointed that Robert chose to ignore the bulk of the points I made. --------------- <. . .> KH: >> I have persistently argued against the Religious Right wherever possible. <. . .> >> H: > Why are their beliefs any more a matter of mere belief than your beliefs? You believe in, but do not know as fact, rebirth, heavens and hells, disembodied existence in certain realms, mere study and thinking leading to the uprooting of defilements, and somehow a buddha appearing in the world whenever the teachings of the presumed prior buddha having died out, and much more. ---------------- On this occasion, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, but thanks again for at least responding. :-) I was just setting the scene. I am what some people call a bleeding-heart pinko. As such, I am the exact opposite those who epitomise the Religions Right (such as Sarah Palan, for example, or any member of the Tea Party etc.). As for "why are their beliefs any more a matter of mere belief than mine" I am not sure what you are asking. You say I believe in "rebirth, heavens and hells, disembodied existence in certain relams," and that is true, I do believe in those things, but I believe them to be namas and rupas. I am not interested in finding evidence of them in the conventionally known world. I think that is where I differ completely from Robert K. He is very interested in finding conventional evidence of ultimate reality. It upsets him that conventional science works against him in that regard. I feel confident that there is no such evidence to be found. The more accurate conventional sciences become, the less evidence of ultimate reality they will reveal. It all comes down to the difference between concepts and realities. Concepts *are* different from realities; they are *not* the same. The better we know concepts, the better we (as Dhamma students) will know the difference between them and reality. ------------------------- KH: > But in recent years, DSG and the Dhamma have shown me the puny, ephemeral, nature of ultimate reality. >> H: > Nibbana is ephemeral? And puny? ------------------------- Don't be silly, Howard, obviously I was talking about the conditioned world. ------------------------------------------- H: > (And have you been SHOWN truth, or simply adopted a set of beliefs?) -------------------------------------------- I have been shown the Dhamma that is preserved in the Pali canon. --------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > satipatthana cannot be attained by looking. That doesn't apply only to meditation, it applies also to looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or looking through the fossil records. Nama and rupa will never be known that way. >> H: > They will be known, thus, by what? By ideas and thinking and belief? ------------------------------------ They will be known by conditions. If the conditions for knowing them aren't present, they won't be known. (That much we can know!) -------------------------------------------------- H: > People study different things, think in different ways, and hold different beliefs. Lots of them truly believe that "they know"! You are one such. You do not differ. You presume, as not mere beliefs on your part, a sure knowing of truth. What makes some of them members of the doctrinaire "religious right" and you an enlightened, religious leftist? ---------------------------------------------------- I haven't said that at all. Ignorance of namas and rupas does not by itself make someone a member of the religious right. ------------------------- KH: > The only way of knowing nama and rupa is by having fortunate vipakka (hearing the true Dhamma) and massive accumulations of pariyatti. >> H: > Ahh, "fortunate"! Well, "good luck" to you!! ;-) -------------------------- Yes, I am fortunate. I am sure there are many - much more worthy - beings who are not as lucky as I am in that respect. -------------------------------------- H: > And "massive accumulations of pariyatti" amounts to aeons of ideas and thinking. That, so far as I know, is not the whole of the Buddha's practice teachings. --------------------------------------- You left out the important part; it should be "ideas and thinking *with right understanding*". --------------- <. . .> KH: > I don't know how you could expect science to teach that sort of thing. Tracing the causes of vipakka is beyond the realm, not only of science, but also of satipatthana. Such matters are acinteyya (unknowable). They can be known only by an omniscient Buddha. For Dhamma-study purposes, the conventional world is best treated as a shadow, or a metaphor, not as a research laboratory. Similarly, our *behaviour* in the conventional world is a shadow of our ultimate behaviour. Therefore, I would like to behave sensibly and rationally in compliance with the best conventional sciences available. >> ------------------ No comment on any of that, Howard? Do you agree with Robert K in saying that conventional science should defer to Christianity and other outmoded beliefs in some way? Even more unlikely, should they defer to satipatthana? (They don't even know what satipatthana is!) ----------------- KH: > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. >> H: > Why so wishy-washy, Ken? LOL! ----------------- :-) Well, it's true! ----------------------- KH: > (But there I go again!) :-) >> H: > Yep, speaking from your seat of true knowing. ;-) ------------------------ Ouch! :-) I meant, there I go again, getting drawn into conventional ideas of right and wrong, when I should be learning about ultimate ideas of right and wrong (panna and miccha-ditthi). Ken H #110985 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina Hi pt, Thanks for this account of the discussion. It is an excellent recollection in all aspects. Cheers Herman On 20 October 2010 16:01, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, Phil, Alex, Jon, Sarah, KenH, > > > Herman: At Manly, there was a discussion about whether or not a > developing insight / > > > understanding of reality modifies behaviour. I hope I am not > misrepresenting > > anyone, but I think Jon was a definite no, pt a maybe, and I a definite > yes. > > I guess, whether we actually believe what we say we understand only > becomes > > apparent when unwanted events come our way, not when everything goes > > according to plan. > > pt: Thanks for reminding me about this, it was an interesting topic. I > think that the confusion is that the topic had two aspects: > > 1. dealing with eradication of anusayas at the moment of enlightenment > (stream-entry to arahat), which is the only thing that permanently modifies > behavior in terms of committing akusala. > > 2. dealing with outward behavior - in the sense that developed > understanding will start underlying all actions, no matter how trivial they > seem from outside (e.g. driving, washing dishes, etc), so there would be no > apparent change in the outward behavior - e.g. we would still eat, wash > dishes, drive, etc, even when understanding develops. I think this is the > point that Sarah was trying to make, while Herman and me focused more on the > other issue of of whether akusala is diminished or not with more progress on > the path. > > I think this issue of non/diminishing akusala goes back to what is actually > eradicated at the moment of enlightenment. The answer is that it's the > anusayas - latent tendencies, which are eradicated. Therefore, as long as > they are not eradicated, they can condition arising of akusala factors in > the future. That would in turn mean that as long as understanding hasn't > developed sufficiently, there's no permanent modification of behavior so to > speak in terms of committing/eradicating akusala. > > As I understood Jon, developing samatha, metta and even understanding at > levels below enlightenment certainly helps in two ways: > - it suppresses the arising of akusala in the very moment that kusala > arises, and hence "no fuel is added to the fire" - i.e. akusala is not > reinforced > - in moments of kusala, kusala is reinforced, what should at some point > culminate in enlightenment. > > However, as long as latent tendencies are not eradicated, they can > condition akusala, in this life or the next, what would then condition more > akusala, etc. I think that was why it seemed logical to conclude that > behavior is not permanently modified (i.e. the possibility of akusala is not > completely eradicated) until the moment of enlightenment (Nina recently > wrote exactly what latent tendency is eradicated at a particular > supramundane path moment). > > Best wishes > pt > > > #110986 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/22/2010 5:04:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and Robert K, Thank you, Howard, for acknowledging my arguments - even if it was to disagree with them. I was disappointed that Robert chose to ignore the bulk of the points I made. --------------- <. . .> KH: >> I have persistently argued against the Religious Right wherever possible. <. . .> >> H: > Why are their beliefs any more a matter of mere belief than your beliefs? You believe in, but do not know as fact, rebirth, heavens and hells, disembodied existence in certain realms, mere study and thinking leading to the uprooting of defilements, and somehow a buddha appearing in the world whenever the teachings of the presumed prior buddha having died out, and much more. ---------------- On this occasion, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, but thanks again for at least responding. :-) I was just setting the scene. I am what some people call a bleeding-heart pinko. ------------------------------------------------- My commiserations, Ken! ;-) -------------------------------------------------- As such, I am the exact opposite those who epitomise the Religions Right (such as Sarah Palan, for example, or any member of the Tea Party etc.). ----------------------------------------------------- What I was addressing was religious beliefs, not political ones. My point is that belief in cittas, for example, is as much a belief as is a belief in "intelligent design." ----------------------------------------------------- As for "why are their beliefs any more a matter of mere belief than mine" I am not sure what you are asking. You say I believe in "rebirth, heavens and hells, disembodied existence in certain relams," and that is true, I do believe in those things, but I believe them to be namas and rupas. I am not interested in finding evidence of them in the conventionally known world. ----------------------------------------------------- What is not directly known as fact but only believed to be fact, whatever the alleged fact may be, is just belief. Materialists, as are most of those on the political left, BTW, would consider belief in rebirth, heavens and hells, etc , etc, to be backward and reactionary ideas, and they also would think a theory of rupas to come in a very poor second to the materialist theories of modern science. The point is, Ken, this is all simply a matter of belief, belief in conceptual stories. ----------------------------------------------------- I think that is where I differ completely from Robert K. He is very interested in finding conventional evidence of ultimate reality. It upsets him that conventional science works against him in that regard. ---------------------------------------------------- You call namas and rupas "ultimate realities," a term which I reserve for nibbana. I call them conventions. Scientists probably call them fictions. And Jewish, Christian and Moslem mystics most likely consider them simply irrelevant. ---------------------------------------------------- I feel confident that there is no such evidence to be found. The more accurate conventional sciences become, the less evidence of ultimate reality they will reveal. It all comes down to the difference between concepts and realities. Concepts *are* different from realities; they are *not* the same. The better we know concepts, the better we (as Dhamma students) will know the difference between them and reality. ------------------------------------------------------ You presume your belief in what constitutes reality to be TRUTH. Maybe it is, but you do not know that. You are no less a "true believer" than those "religious" folks you disdain. ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- KH: > But in recent years, DSG and the Dhamma have shown me the puny, ephemeral, nature of ultimate reality. >> H: > Nibbana is ephemeral? And puny? ------------------------- Don't be silly, Howard, obviously I was talking about the conditioned world. ---------------------------------------------------------- Well, I forgot for the moment what you consider to be "realities". For me, only nibbana is such. ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- H: > (And have you been SHOWN truth, or simply adopted a set of beliefs?) -------------------------------------------- I have been shown the Dhamma that is preserved in the Pali canon. --------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > satipatthana cannot be attained by looking. That doesn't apply only to meditation, it applies also to looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or looking through the fossil records. Nama and rupa will never be known that way. >> H: > They will be known, thus, by what? By ideas and thinking and belief? ------------------------------------ They will be known by conditions. ----------------------------------------------------- That is lacking content, Ken. It is close to being an empty tautology. ----------------------------------------------------- If the conditions for knowing them aren't present, they won't be known. ------------------------------------------------------ Exactly what conditions, Ken? And why should they occur? This is without content. ------------------------------------------------------- (That much we can know!) ----------------------------------------------------- ;-) To say that events occur when the necessary conditions have occurred is hardly worth the breath to say it. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- H: > People study different things, think in different ways, and hold different beliefs. Lots of them truly believe that "they know"! You are one such. You do not differ. You presume, as not mere beliefs on your part, a sure knowing of truth. What makes some of them members of the doctrinaire "religious right" and you an enlightened, religious leftist? ---------------------------------------------------- I haven't said that at all. Ignorance of namas and rupas does not by itself make someone a member of the religious right. ---------------------------------------------- I don't see why politics is being brought up at all. ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------- KH: > The only way of knowing nama and rupa is by having fortunate vipakka (hearing the true Dhamma) and massive accumulations of pariyatti. >> H: > Ahh, "fortunate"! Well, "good luck" to you!! ;-) -------------------------- Yes, I am fortunate. I am sure there are many - much more worthy - beings who are not as lucky as I am in that respect. ---------------------------------------------------- What's this luck business? Useful vipaka arises due to wholesome kamma. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- H: > And "massive accumulations of pariyatti" amounts to aeons of ideas and thinking. That, so far as I know, is not the whole of the Buddha's practice teachings. --------------------------------------- You left out the important part; it should be "ideas and thinking *with right understanding*". --------------------------------------------------- How and why does the right understanding occur, and who is the judge of what is the right understanding? Belief is belief is belief! --------------------------------------------------- --------------- <. . .> KH: > I don't know how you could expect science to teach that sort of thing. Tracing the causes of vipakka is beyond the realm, not only of science, but also of satipatthana. Such matters are acinteyya (unknowable). They can be known only by an omniscient Buddha. For Dhamma-study purposes, the conventional world is best treated as a shadow, or a metaphor, not as a research laboratory. Similarly, our *behaviour* in the conventional world is a shadow of our ultimate behaviour. Therefore, I would like to behave sensibly and rationally in compliance with the best conventional sciences available. >> ------------------ No comment on any of that, Howard? ----------------------------------------------- No. ----------------------------------------------- Do you agree with Robert K in saying that conventional science should defer to Christianity and other outmoded beliefs in some way? Even more unlikely, should they defer to satipatthana? (They don't even know what satipatthana is!) ----------------------------------------------- This is not a matter I wish to get into. ----------------------------------------------- ----------------- KH: > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. >> H: > Why so wishy-washy, Ken? LOL! ----------------- :-) Well, it's true! ----------------------- KH: > (But there I go again!) :-) >> H: > Yep, speaking from your seat of true knowing. ;-) ------------------------ Ouch! :-) I meant, there I go again, getting drawn into conventional ideas of right and wrong, when I should be learning about ultimate ideas of right and wrong (panna and miccha-ditthi). --------------------------------------------------- I'm really happy that I like you, Ken! It's helpful to really like someone who sees things very differently from oneself. :-) -------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard The Aggregates are Void /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) #110987 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind vs matter. Materialsm vs Idealism. egberdina Hi Phil, On 21 October 2010 00:00, philip wrote: > > > > > Hi Pt and all > > > > However, as long as latent tendencies are not eradicated, they can > condition akusala, in this life or the next, what would then condition more > akusala, etc. I think that was why it seemed logical to conclude that > behavior is not permanently modified (i.e. the possibility of akusala is not > completely eradicated) > > Ph: OK, "the possibily of akusala is not completely eradicated", fine. But > the idea that behaviour isn't modified by exposure to, reflection on, and > increased understanding of the Dhamma is peculiar to me. The cockroaches > that I haven't killed are still parading through the world as evidence to > that! *All* Buddhists surely move in the direction of keeping the precepts, > and that is of course modification of behaviour. > > I remember talking about this sort of thing in past years with Jon and > Sarah and others, their insistence on the fact that the latent tendencies > remain. Of course the latent tendencies remain. This doesn't trump the fact > that particular harmful actions are occuring dramatically less often. It's > like they're saying that although over the years smoking has led to toxins > being accumulated in the body in a way that may condition the growth of > cancerous tumous, there is no point in stopping smoking because the latent > tendency to cancer remains, or something like that. I don't know if that's a > good analogy but I'm enormously grateful that I still place a lot of value > on trying to stop doing the things that the Buddha strongly urged us to stop > doing, starting with killing, lying, stealing, using intoxicants and having > wrong sex. If I were to make a bar chart showing the incidence of such > behaviour, it would show a lovely downward trend, I am certain of that. And > that is a modification of behaviour that came because of Dhamma. > > Ask the cockroaches! > > I am with you in this regard. Insight that a particular behaviour is harmful will modify that behaviour. And in reverse, no modification indicates no insight. I would add that I do not believe that it is possible to live entirely harmlessly. It is simply a matter of fact that each one of us, by merely being alive, are placed in competition with others for requisites which are more or less scarce. To the extent that I eat, if only a little, someone else is not eating it. C'est la vie. Cheers Herman #110988 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Ken H, On 21 October 2010 11:56, Ken H wrote: > > > > According to the Abhidhamma, anicca dukkha and anatta *are* characteristics > born by physical and mental elements. As such, they (together with the other > characteristics) form the sabhava (substance) of the elements. > > I am sorry you can't see it that way, but it seems perfectly reasonable to > me. > > One of the reasons why it isn't perfectly reasonable is that there is a prior insistence that there is only one object at a time. That makes comparison impossible, because to make a comparison there need to be at least two objects to compare. As Rob E has been at pains to point out, anatta is a comparison, namely between what is there and what is expected. That is what awareness of absence of is, it is not a presence, it is a difference. If you want to insist that it is perfectly reasonable to attribute difference as a characteristic of a single element, go for it. Cheers Herman #110989 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (2) egberdina Hi Rob E, On 21 October 2010 19:08, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > Just as you do not experience your eyes seeing, you do not experience > > consciousness experiencing an object. What you experience is an object, > and > > the sense that the object and the experience of it are not the same. > > > > I'd like to explore this a little bit more. There's a lot to talk about in > there. > > I have the sense that mindfulness includes being aware of seeing, hearing, > etc., in addition to being aware of the object of seeing, hearing, etc. If I > pay attention to seeing and the quality of seeing, I am looking at what > "seeing" is like, using the object seen and its qualities now as an example, > rather than just as itself. I am not restricted to the object, but can chew > over its qualities. I notice that bright light makes a different impression > on my eye and is processed differently by my imaging system than something > that is dark and murky. I can feel my eyes reacting to the bright light, > there is eye-sensation, in addition to being able to be aware of what the > visual "picture" is like as it is being taken. I can focus on different > parts of the visual field and see what qualities are there when I shift > focus. So I think I can become aware of the "camera" as well as the photo. > > I think I understand what you are saying. We can experiment and so discover which acts contribute to modification of the visual field. I would throw in a caution that none of those acts are actually the seeing, though, they are only modifications on the object side of the equation. The positive sensation of those acts is not the seeing, they are the sensations that correlate with moving the eyeballs in their sockets, or squinting, or such like. Even with the eyelids closed, there are still seen objects. We can certainly develop a very well-founded idea that eyes are critical to the process of [seeing] objects, but in all of that the notion of seeing, as distinct from what is seen, is an abstraction, not an experience. > Seems to me that is an important part of mindfulness and becoming aware of > the nature of the sensory equipment that is translating reality into my > terms. My sense is that vipassana, and awakening as well, has a strong > relation to realizing that we live in a cognitive-sensory "box" and that we > are in fact a translating device, or set of translating terms to form a > coherent reality, rather than simply taking in a pre-digested reality. The > sense that we are the result of a camera, a tape-recorder and a computer, > etc., to put it in mechanical terms, seems to have a kind of freedom in > realizing what we are contained within, and that consciousness is not > free-ranging, but constrained by how it is filtered. That makes one more > aware of consciousness itself, by counterposing it against its given limits > and filters, and distinguishing its basic capacity from the equipment it's > operating through. > > Cultures all over the world 2500 years ago equally shared in the belief that the heart was the seat of "the mind". Buddhism certainly promoted that idea as well. I doubt therefore that vipassana or awakening could require any theory of how perception works, even a half-baked one :-) Cheers Herman #110990 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:39 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, RobertK2, KenH, all, > > > >RE: I believe in the good use of provisional reality, since that is >all >we are actually in touch with... The question is what >practices will >surpass that influence and move us towards critical >mass of letting go > > Good ideas, RobertE. I wonder if the worldly training simile works for comparing it to development of more kusala in Dhamma. ... > A person comes to the gym and starts with little weights. Through proper training, little by little, that person will progress to lift heavier weights. > > It goes without saying that all actions, intentions, setting up of causes, was fully conditioned and not-self. Does the anatta disregard such happenings? I think you are right, and that is what I had in mind. Work with what you have in real practice, in addition to understanding the concepts of what you cannot yet experience. But the practice with what is actually experienced now, is the real "working with what is arising now," not an idealized form that you can't perceive. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110991 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:05 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob K. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > Yet chldren are - in biology classes led to connect the dots; "see here are amino acids made in the lab , you can see how over time it is sure that cells and bacteria must sooner or later form, and so life beagan and here we are today." It is all very neat and seamless but misleading and leads to a materialistic view of the world. > > > Robert > > > > So do you think that physical life is a delusion and does not actually exist? Evolution is established as an actuality for all scientists except a very small number who believe in other mechanisms with absolutely no proof. Someone who believes in an unproven hypothesis that has no factual basis is not a scientist at all. That understanding does not make us good or bad Buddhists, but there is a different basis for being a good or bad scientist. > > > ++++ > Dear Robert > Could you say why you think based on the several hundreds of posts on dsg which I mention rupa(materiality) you have assumed I think physical life is a delusion? Not based on any of your prior posts, and I do not assume you think physical life is a delusion. I asked the question because physical life is the realm of science - it deals only with observable material laws, thus in that arena science has a clear understanding of physical laws and events as they are currently known, and has nothing to do with any supernatural matters, such as the course of multiple rebirths. Your comparison between those two realms, and suggesting that the non-scientifically-based, unproven theory of intelligent design had equal footing, suggested that you might believe that mystically-based interpretations of physical reality are equally valid, or more valid, than hard science. You came down hard on science in your post. So I asked the question, and did not assume anything. I don't know what you believe in, but you don't seem to be a big fan of science, and you accused the scientific view of an overly strong regard for materiality. > You see the Intelligent Design proponents point out that ' yes evolution has occured, but science has not proved that it resulted from only material, chance mixing of chemicals' yet that is what scientists in the field of evolution have claimed and this is what is propagated in textbooks. It is a false argument. You can argue for something that has evidence, which Intelligent Design does not, but it's an old trick to call upon those who do have evidence for their view to prove a negative that you throw out as a challenge. They are simply trying to promote their belief in God as Creator, for which there is no evidence at all. I can say, "Rob, please prove conclusively that there are no unicorns," and it is impossible to do. Evolution has a great preponderance of evidence behind it, and no other theory does. Case closed, as far as physical existence and physical law goes. There may be something else, but it is not in the realm of that which can be presently shown to exist by rules of evidence. > Could I ask how much have you studied evolution and the > claims of scientist regarding life's beginnings? I have not studied medicine either, but I have read well enough and gotten good enough results from my doctors, that I think they know what they, as experts, are talking about within their realm. I don't expect a Western doctor to give me good advice on acupuncture, but when it comes to bacteria and medicine or setting a bone, I think they've proven themselves. I don't ask scientists to guide my spiritual life - they would be quite inept - but through years of research and much evidence they have proven their case on evolution beyond reasonable doubt. It happens that I have seen fossil evidence and read a number of explanations of current proofs of evolution. Even more evidence has mounted up than previously in favor of evolutionary theory. I would not rule out Intelligent Design of some kind, but someone will have to give a much better proof before I will rule it in. It's just a fantasy at present by some religious people who would like it to be true. Intelligent Design is the bastard stepson of Creationism. When they couldn't get that to fly they wrapped the Bible explanation for creation in some scientific sounding bs to sweeten it up. Same cast, updated play. > From my earlier post, perhaps you could comment on these quotes from leading scientist in the field of evolution (btw you think 'evolution scientists' is a term that can never be used?(why?) But is calling them scientist in the field of evolution allowable?) Oh I may have misunderstood your term. Of course there are evolution scientists in the sense of those that specialize in evolution. My mistake. > Scientists, despite their metaphysically > neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. Yes, they live in a materialistic paradigm and deal only with visible or recordable forces and evidence. That's what makes them trustworthy in that area, and not relevant in non-observable areas that are not the realm of science and never will be and never should be. That is why Creationism is taught in religion class and not in science class. We should not mix scientific theory with religious doctrines dressed up like science. > And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was > a chance occurrence. The big bang occurred (no one knows why or what were the > conditions ) Stephen Hawking's new book has some very interesting material on this. He's gotten a bit closer to explaining this mysterious part of cosmology. > and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter > came together by gravity to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, > purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form > amino acids. These then by haphazard mixing formed complex proteins, which later formed DNA, and > then somehow by some amazing set of chance occurences, bacteria. Life all arose > out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism > (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their > technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why? Complexity is not proof of an unseen outside force for which there is no proof. When we don't understand something in science, we don't just make up an explanation. > Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a > commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to > material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts > that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter > how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for > we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The > Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New > York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). This is fine. When scientists have mystical views or suspicions, they have two valid choices: right a philosophy book and say honestly that it is not science, or go out and prove the new theory. So far they have not done the latter, so science has no explanation beyond what has been observed as a regular and orderly evolution based on random occurrences. When we find a key to how they may be explained otherwise, that will be included in the theory. So scientists who feel this way should get to work and develop some proofs for an intelligent outside force. The first step would be to design an experiment or mode of observation. If they can't, then it's tough luck for now. > Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). > > And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if > there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but > pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). Good definition of samsara, don't you think? > In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading > Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a > purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, > pp.344-345). > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of > the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last > knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which > he emerged by chance." (p.167) > > As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the > blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or > spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of > evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of > much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western > thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). > > > Do you think the views expressed by these top scientists (but not 'evolution scientists' even though all there writings and research are on evolution?)are any more speculative than Christian ideas about lifes beginnings? Surely both views are wrong by Buddhist standards, what the Christians ask for is acknowledgment that the debate is one over worldview, not over scientific evidence . I disagree. I don't share Dawkins' super-materialistic worldview, but I acknowledge that to date no scientist has come up with evidence for an alternate view. If there was not evidence for random selection, it would not have been identified as the mechanism of evolution, and I do not want to have theistic fantasies influence science. Darwin was deeply religious and believed that evolution was a mechanism created by God, yet he observed random selection and as a scientist recorded the evidence that was there, not colored by his own religious beliefs. I advise us all to do the same when it comes to science, and recognize speculative metaphysics as a non-scientific area of experience. I think you are incorrect that most scientists in the area of evolution think that there is a Divine hand at play in evolution. I think it is a very small number of scientists, a tiny percentage in any field. Here's a quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5] The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, funded heavily by Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a right wing Christian reconstructionist millionaire, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110992 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:09 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who were and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview known in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. > And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is law. > No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never did since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism at school. Families who feel strongly that their children should have a spiritual world-view either home-school them or send them to religious schools. Public science classes are obligated to teach a physical view of the universe. They should never say in class that "God does not exist" or make other spiritual pronouncements, but religion should also keep its views out of science class. Children should be told that the two don't mix and have nothing to say about each other. In any case, you don't get your world view from science class; you get it from your parents. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110993 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma egberdina Hi Rob K, On 22 October 2010 16:15, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > Just throwing in my point of view here............. > __ > Actually nowhere did I suggest that science should teach that. But if say > the dominant religion of USA was buddhism and buddhists started promoting > the Tipitaka or suggesting that all life was not formed by chance occurences > of chemicals mixing togeher, or that kamma was a factor etc then you would > find the forces of science arrayed against it just as much as they are > against Intelligent Design proponents. > > Like you, I certainly can't believe that the complexity that underpins life could arise spontaneously or randomly (abiogenesis). I do not have an alternate belief either. I just do not know, I simply cannot comprehend the origins of the situation I am in. But I firmly believe, on the basis of a lack of evidence, that the notions of kamma and rebirth, when used in tandem, are not a useful model of how things work. Those beliefs, together, amount to Lamarckian evolution, the notion that characteristics acquired during one lifetime, are transmitted to a next generation. Examples of this kind of thinking are that an animal, in reaching for food higher and higher up a tree branch will grow a longer neck, and that therefore its progeny will have longer necks, and that is how giraffes evolve. Or a blacksmith, developing his muscles through his labours, will have stronger children. This kind of thinking has been dominant for milennia, in all cultures. It is now passing into folklore, but only in those quarters where beliefs need to be underpinned by solid evidence. Cheers Herman > Buddhism escapes widespread condemnation in this area because it is under > the rader and because well-meaning buddhists like to think science and > Dhamma are in perfect agreement.When they look at evolution ideas they > conveniently ignore the ideas of evolution scientists (is that term really > so bad?) that disagree with buddhist views, and even sometimes jump in on > the side of scientists against the supposed evil christians. > > > > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists > who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their > distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. > ++++++++++ > I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who were > and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview known > in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. > And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is law. > No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never did > since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism at > school. > robert > > > #110994 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:42 pm Subject: Doing good elevates our Future! bhikkhu5 Friends: Magnificent is Merit well done in good time! The Blessed Buddha explained DOING GOOD like this: Here and now the good-doer rejoices... Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of good reaps only joy and satisfaction ... So both here and there the wise with merit well done enjoys the purity of his prior good actions. Dhammapada Illustration 16 Background Story 16 THE PRECIOUS POSSIBILITY Just as one can make many varied bouquets from a single big bunch of flowers, a mortal among the humans can make many kinds of merit by doing various good deeds. Dhammapada Illustration 53 Background Story 53 HONOURABLE Those who honours those worthy of honour: That is the Buddha and his disciples; Who are unhindered, sorrowless, and fearless, finders of Nibbana, their merit gained from such worthy & well directed honour cannot be estimated by anyone... Dhammapada Illustration 195-196 Background Story 195+196 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Magnificent is Merit! -- <...> May all beings become thus Happy! Friendship is the GREATEST! Have a Nice Noble Day! Bhikkhu Samahita Ceylon #110995 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob K, > > On 22 October 2010 16:15, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just throwing in my point of view here............. > > > > > __ > > Actually nowhere did I suggest that science should teach that. But if say > > the dominant religion of USA was buddhism and buddhists started promoting > > the Tipitaka or suggesting that all life was not formed by chance occurences > > of chemicals mixing togeher, or that kamma was a factor etc then you would > > find the forces of science arrayed against it just as much as they are > > against Intelligent Design proponents. > > > > > Like you, I certainly can't believe that the complexity that underpins life > could arise spontaneously or randomly (abiogenesis). I do not have an > alternate belief either. I just do not know, I simply cannot comprehend the > origins of the situation I am in. +++++++++++ Derar Herman thanks, glad to hear you are not convinced by the current scientific worldview: Obviously i am a believer in the kamma as a main cause (which you also don't believe as you explain below). However the Buddhist view is not Lamarckian - as my chidren for example could have accumulations completely different from my own. It is rather than after death the accumulations would be carried on in the strem of khandhas just as they are in this life: so although next life I won't be called Robert, may not be a man, there is still the same deepseated tendencies . Robert > > But I firmly believe, on the basis of a lack of evidence, that the notions > of kamma and rebirth, when used in tandem, are not a useful model of how > things work. Those beliefs, together, amount to Lamarckian evolution, the > notion that characteristics acquired during one lifetime, are transmitted to > a next generation. Examples of this kind of thinking are that an animal, in > reaching for food higher and higher up a tree branch will grow a longer > neck, and that therefore its progeny will have longer necks, and that is how > giraffes evolve. Or a blacksmith, developing his muscles through his > labours, will have stronger children. This kind of thinking has been > dominant for milennia, in all cultures. It is now passing into folklore, but > only in those quarters where beliefs need to be underpinned by solid > evidence. > > > Cheers > > > Herman > > > > > > > Buddhism escapes widespread condemnation in this area because it is under > > the rader and because well-meaning buddhists like to think science and > > Dhamma are in perfect agreement.When they look at evolution ideas they > > conveniently ignore the ideas of evolution scientists (is that term really > > so bad?) that disagree with buddhist views, and even sometimes jump in on > > the side of scientists against the supposed evil christians. > > > > > > > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious extremists > > who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with their > > distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. > > ++++++++++ > > I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who were > > and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview known > > in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. > > And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is law. > > No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never did > > since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism at > > school. > > robert > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #110996 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:09 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who were and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview known in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. > > And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is law. > > No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never did since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism at school. > > Families who feel strongly that their children should have a spiritual world-view either home-school them or send them to religious schools. Public science classes are obligated to teach a physical view of the universe. They should never say in class that "God does not exist" or make other spiritual pronouncements, but religion should also keep its views out of science class. Children should be told that the two don't mix and have nothing to say about each other. > > In any case, you don't get your world view from science class; you get it from your parents. > __________ Dear Robert Well I think worldview is devolped from mnay sources , if one spends years of ones life in a school culture where the scientific worldview is acclaimed and rarely questioned it would have some bearing on ones views I would have thought. Do you know Michael Ruse, he is one of the leading scientists in the field of evolution and certainly belives in the Darwinian wordview and is an ardent atheist. He writes in his book "Taking Darwin Seriously" """""Take, for example, the central claim of non-heretical versions of Christianity, namely that God is all-powerful and all-loving. People have been sent to the stake for denying one or other of these predicates. Yet an application of elementary logic to the overwhelming factual evidence shows that such a conception of God is downright inconsistent. And all-powerful, all-loving God would not allow small children to die and that is that" (1987, p.176) But when I spoke with him Ruse explained that his position has developed over the more than 20 years that he has been investigating Darwinian theory (he leaned more towards the Dawkins camp before). While still convinced of the basic truths of the theory, he finds the work of writers such as Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, and Dennet to be informed by their worldviews as much as the evidence and they go beyond what the science suggests. He said there is nothing wrong with this, but that these people don't acknowledge their bias and this is where problems occur. "Now some of my fellow Darwinists don't appreciate me saying this but still it is important that it be said." He said that an independent observer looking at the conflict can see that it is ideological. He would be happy to see the see aspects of the debate taught in high school perhaps in a social studies class. But he wouldn't agree with teaching creationism as if it was equal to evolution nor would he like to see say Dawkins' "Out of Eden" used as a textbook, due to its ideological basis. In university he certainly teaches the debate. The other thing is that although textbook may not say directly "there is no God (or no kamma or whatever)" they do very clearly suggest that in promoting the scientific picture of the world. And just to outline the differences between Buddhost, christina and current scientific worldviews I add these brief definitions: Christian: Those who believe in some supernatural influence on the universe (a creator God). current 'Scientific': Those who view the universe from an entirely materialistic viewpoint (I avoid the use of "naturalistic" as this could include the Buddhist standpoint). This is sometimes called the "scientific picture of the world," or SPW. It does exclude a very large number of scientists: both those with a religious or spiritual worldview and those who have no fixed view on this matter. However, many scientists do subscribe to the SPW. Buddhist: The idea of a world brought about by impersonal conditions but which include mental factors in addition to material processes (including kamma) as conditioning and conditioned agents. Now scientists are sometimes idealized as detached and rational beings who accept no theory without overwhelming proof. Followers of religion on the other hand are supposed to accept their doctrines solely on blind faith. The true picture may be rather different: Ziman- one of the most respected philosophers of science in recent times, writes "" by his education and by participation in normal science, the average research worker is heavily indoctrinated and finds great difficulty in facing the possibility that his world picture might be wrong. The virtues of scepticism are extolled but are difficult to practise in the everyday activity of research. The expert, whom ought to know better is often more credulous than the layman concerning the foundations of his knowledge ""(1978, pp.90-91). Thus while scientists point out that all scientific theories are subject to overhaul as new evidence comes in, this can obscure the fact that some of them hold to their current beliefs "religiously." Robert #110997 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:23 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Howard and Robert K, > > Thank you, Howard, for acknowledging my arguments - even if it was to disagree with them. I was disappointed that Robert chose to ignore the bulk of the points I made. > > --------------- Dear Ken please do highlight what areas you feel I have missed. You write, KEN: I think that is where I differ completely from Robert K. He is very interested in finding conventional evidence of ultimate reality. It upsets him that conventional science works against him in that regard. > I feel confident that there is no such evidence to be found. The more accurate conventional sciences become, the less evidence of ultimate reality they will reveal.""" you explained that conventional truths are only shadows of the ultimate realties. This is true, but it also means that these shadows completely conform to the realties which cast the shadows. A human is human becuase the patisandhi citta was conditioned by kusal kamma done in the past: that type of rebirth consciousness couldn't give birth as a human. Similarly our view of life is conditioned by either samma ditthi or miccha ditthi. Thus these views expressed below are the shadow of the ditthi (ultimate reality) of the writers: Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133) Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) Futuyma : "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). Likewise Christians who speak about God making the universe are expressing the ditthi (ultimate reality) underlying and motivating that speech. What I am curious about is why you seem to disdain conventional expressions yet you apparently value the scientific worldview a great deal? Robert #110998 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma egberdina Hi Rob K, On 23 October 2010 14:49, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > > Like you, I certainly can't believe that the complexity that underpins > life > > could arise spontaneously or randomly (abiogenesis). I do not have an > > alternate belief either. I just do not know, I simply cannot comprehend > the > > origins of the situation I am in. > > +++++++++++ > Derar Herman > thanks, glad to hear you are not convinced by the current scientific > worldview: > Obviously i am a believer in the kamma as a main cause (which you also > don't believe as you explain below). > Thank you for your comments. Just to clarify, I do not reject kamma per se. Without doubt, what has been done in the past has an influence in what can and does happen in the future. Perhaps I misunderstand what Buddhists mean by rebirth. I understand them to mean that there is some nexus between the death of an individual being here, and the birth of an individual being there. I do not see that connection. But certainly, what I have done in the past will contribute to the situation into whatever being is born. > However the Buddhist view is not Lamarckian - as my chidren for example > could have accumulations completely different from my own. > It is rather than after death the accumulations would be carried on in the > strem of khandhas just as they are in this life: so although next life I > won't be called Robert, may not be a man, there is still the same deepseated > tendencies . > > I believe you are saying there is a nexus between the death of a being here, and the birth of a being there. Am I correct in that belief? Cheers Herman > Robert > > > > > > But I firmly believe, on the basis of a lack of evidence, that the > notions > > of kamma and rebirth, when used in tandem, are not a useful model of how > > things work. Those beliefs, together, amount to Lamarckian evolution, the > > notion that characteristics acquired during one lifetime, are transmitted > to > > a next generation. Examples of this kind of thinking are that an animal, > in > > reaching for food higher and higher up a tree branch will grow a longer > > neck, and that therefore its progeny will have longer necks, and that is > how > > giraffes evolve. Or a blacksmith, developing his muscles through his > > labours, will have stronger children. This kind of thinking has been > > dominant for milennia, in all cultures. It is now passing into folklore, > but > > only in those quarters where beliefs need to be underpinned by solid > > evidence. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Herman > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buddhism escapes widespread condemnation in this area because it is > under > > > the rader and because well-meaning buddhists like to think science and > > > Dhamma are in perfect agreement.When they look at evolution ideas they > > > conveniently ignore the ideas of evolution scientists (is that term > really > > > so bad?) that disagree with buddhist views, and even sometimes jump in > on > > > the side of scientists against the supposed evil christians. > > > > > > > > > > I certainly won't be guided by dishonest, devious, religious > extremists > > > who are determined to indoctrinate society - from childhood up - with > their > > > distortions of scientific papers and their pernicious wrong views. > > > ++++++++++ > > > I don't know about Australia but in new zealand it was the schools who > were > > > and are indoctinating children into a purely materialistic worldview > known > > > in Buddhist jargon as uchedda ditthi. > > > And chidren now and then must take lessons in this worldview - it is > law. > > > No one makes chidren go to church other than their parents, mine never > did > > > since they were not Christian. But boy did I get a load of materialism > at > > > school. > > > robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > #110999 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:36 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > . Your comparison between those two realms, and suggesting that the non-scientifically-based, unproven theory of intelligent design had equal footing, suggested that you might believe that mystically-based interpretations of physical reality are equally valid, or more valid, than hard science. You came down hard on science in your post. So I asked the question, and did not assume anything. I don't know what you believe in, but you don't seem to be a big fan of science, and you accused the scientific view of an overly strong regard for materiality. Dear Robert The findings of science interact with the worldviews of the culture in which it exists: the worldviews of the society act as a conservative balance on science, but science can bring about radical changes in beliefs to the extent that its findings seem plausible. Scientific ideas, like religious ones, become part of the worldviews of the society and so shape how cultures see the world. William Seager the Philopspher of Science, writes: "We possess an exceptionally elegant theory of how biological complexity arises. The SPW [scientific picture of the world] integrates top-down and bottom-up perspectives. From the top, the theory of evolution tells us how organisms become more complex, so long as complexity is reproductively advantageous. From the bottom, we have forged an indissoluble connection between chemistry and genetics which has revealed the chemical basis of life and evolution (Seager, manuscript in preparation, p.15)." Such connections are compelling and so scientific materialism seems almost unassailable and has become the dominant belief in western cultre (overtkaing Christianity many years ago). However this picture is not seamless: Seager, while seemingly convinced of the infallibility of the SPW, admits that for materialism "the mind stands, as, at present, especially problematic". > > > You see the Intelligent Design proponents point out that ' yes evolution has occured, but science has not proved that it resulted from only material, chance mixing of chemicals' yet that is what scientists in the field of evolution have claimed and this is what is propagated in textbooks. > > It is a false argument. You can argue for something that has evidence, which Intelligent Design does not, but it's an old trick to call upon those who do have evidence for their view to prove a negative that you throw out as a challenge. They are simply trying to promote their belief in God as Creator, for which there is no evidence at all. I can say, "Rob, please prove conclusively that there are no unicorns," and it is impossible to do. Evolution has a great preponderance of evidence behind it, and no other theory does. Case closed, as far as physical existence and physical law goes. There may be something else, but it is not in the realm of that which can be presently shown to exist by rules of evidence. Not sure if it is 'case closed" yet. You know I think everyone , even christians agree that the earth revloves around the sun, the case is certainly closed on this old debate. So Christians can change their views if teh evidence is clear. Surely if teh evidence was completely oeverwhelming everyone would have no doubts, wouldn't they? Just one point for now: One hurdle for evolution is the development of extraordinarily intricate biological systems. On the one hand biologists' discoveries of DNA and genetic processes support evolutionary theory; on the other, life appears to be more complex than biologists originally thought: """The molecular revolution has reached an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction. It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at odds with postulates held by neo-Darwinists """(Shapiro, 1997). And genetic mutations are fairly rare: Huxley (1963) suggested one in every million births. The question then arises as to whether there could there have been enough of them to produce the complex life forms that now exist. For instance Yockey (1992) calculated that the probability of a protein forming by chance mixing of chemicals is in the order of 1065. Thus the time frame, even given billions of years, seems far too short. Even leaving aside the initial formation of life the biggest hurdle for materialism to overcome we are still left with the mathematical improbability of simple life forms slowly evolving into the complex creatures that now exist within the relatively short time frames allowed for by current theories. Science philosopher Robert Nola, a proponent of Darwinism, is open about this: "Now one thing Christians have zeroed in on is the amount of time it takes and it shows that evolutionary theory is not absolutely complete, but anyway there is [the theory of] punctuated evolution which may answer that." (R. Nola, personal communication, February, 2003). > > I would not rule out Intelligent Design of some kind, but someone will have to give a much better proof before I will rule it in. > ---------- Well I rule it out as a type of wrong view based on my Buddhist understanding. --------- >robert