#111600 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) sarahprocter... Hi Antony, I appreciate the way you reflect on these suttas, looking for "the heart". --- On Sun, 7/11/10, antony272b2 wrote: >What about these questions: "Will I exist after death?" "Will I not exist after death?" "Will I both exist and not exist after death?" "Will I neither exist nor not exist after death?" In Samyutta Nikaya 22.86 the Buddha responds to these four questions about the destiny of Himself (the "Tathagata") after death, But I think that the same logic works for any sentient being. "Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." ... S: Exactly - no Tathagata, no sentient being in truth.... ... >"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." <...> >I have to admit that I'm only thinking that form, feeling etc. are impermanent according to the theory rather than direct insight. I suspect that the issue is much more immediate than logic and words on a page. ... S: This is honest. There has to be a direct understanding of form, feeling etc over and over again before direct insight can penetrate the impermanence of these dhammas. We can think about the impermanence of them, but this is not insight, as you say. Pls read my "grand-mother" comments just posted. Keep sharing, Antony. I find our discussions helpful. Metta Sarah ======= #111601 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:09 am Subject: Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) sarahprocter... Hi Antony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > Here is a sutta about a dying monk longing for the sight of the Buddha as a person. I'm not sure what the Buddha meant by "He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma." ... S: When we understand the Dhamma, we appreciate the qualities of the Buddha. If we just wish to pay respects or see the Buddha without understand what he taught, we can never appreciate those qualities. That's why those who develop samatha without having become an ariyan, cannot develop samatha or attain access with "Buddha" as object. ... The preceding sutta SN22.86 I once posted to dsg which concludes with the insight that the Tathagata can't be pinned down either within or without the five aggregates (or by logic even an ordinary person either). ... S: As agreed.....just the khandhas, regardless of Buddha or ordinary person. ... Metta Sarah ======== #111602 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Herman (111034) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > > J: I can only repeat that the conditions for the development of the path do > > not include the undertaking of specific intentional activities. What more is > > there to say? ;-)) > > It leaves unanswered the question: is the undertaking of specific > intentional activities a hindrance to development? > =============== J: This question comes up frequently in one form or another. Alex and I have been going back and forth on this general area for more than a year now, I think ;-)), while a recent post to me from Robert E raises the same issue. To my understanding, specific intentional activities (whether regarded in conventional terms as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral') are neither a support nor a hindrance for the development of the path. Those supports and hindrances are other factors (mainly mental states) but not intentional activities per se. As regards support, the factors specifically mentioned in the suttas include a/ hearing the true dhamma and b/ reflecting on what has been thus heard and understood. Neither of these is a particular intentional activity. Hearing the true dhamma means being the recipient of an explanation of some aspect of the teachings given in a manner that conveys the true meaning of that aspect to us (or results in that happening in due course), and this may come from any source or occur on any occasion. Reflecting on what has been heard and understood is (or at least includes) reflexive thinking or considering of the undirected kind; it does not, for example, mean thinking deliberately undertaken as a form of 'practice'. As regards hindrances, the main hindrance to the development of the path is the mental factor of wrong view, since this takes the wrong path to be the right one. Hoping this answers your question. Jon #111603 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:14 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: It's just the dust - the lobha, dosa and moha - that cause the daily > > life difficulties. Without that, it'd all be plain sailing without any need > > for any sympathy:-) > > > > >H: Sure, agreed. .... S: !! (he agreed:-/!) .... >H: Still, no amount of vacuum cleaning eliminates the creation of dust, and no > amount of imagining a dustless world leads to one. > > Here we are > you and me > quite dustee > > :-) .... S: :-) Metta Sarah ====== #111604 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:16 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Phil (111036) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Jon > ... > > J: Thanks for taking the trouble to come back and mention this specifically. (Would be interested to know what prompted the change in your view on this!) > > > Ph: The Vism text passage did it for me, the conditions laid out there make it clear that the clansman in question is not "a beginner" in the sense we would understand it. > =============== J: Thanks. Yes, the Vism passage is pretty clear if read carefully and in full. Unfortunately, most people seem to prefer a rather selective reading ;-)) Jon #111605 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:18 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Alex (111043) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, KenH, Sukin, all, > > >J: There's no part of the teachings that says that reading a >Dhamma >book (or listening to a discourse) is likely to condition >panna to >arise, ... > >...but that does not mean that the commission of akusala kamma patha > >of other kinds is an obstacle to the development of insight. > > Then why read them or listen to a discourse if it is unlikely to condition panna? Why not engage in akusala behaviour, like watching porn, or athletic girls with guns doing Kung-Fu and shooting bad guys - if panna is just as likely to arise after listening to dhamma or watching movies? > =============== J: If a person who is interested in the teachings is fortunate enough to have the Dhamma explained in a way that is suitable for his/her level of understanding, then of course it may well condition some level of awareness to arise. That arising of awareness may occur at a time quite removed from the hearing or reading concerned, after much further reflection. As you will know from personal experience, reflection on things heard or read may occur throughout the day, when performing everyday tasks or watching TV. Of course, if one holds the view that awareness can only arise at times of 'practice' and not at other times also, that would obviously be an obstacle to there actually being any awareness at such other times. > =============== > I am yet to find any passage in the suttas or even commentaries where it says that "one shouldn't do any of these actions" and that "whenever it tells you to do such and such things, it doesn't actually mean that you do them. You just read about them". > =============== J: In the suttas in question, I do not read the Buddha as prescribing specific intentional activities to be undertaken. Rather I think he was explaining the different stages in the development of the path. Jon #111606 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] wedding aniversary. sarahprocter... Hi Azita, --- On Sun, 7/11/10, gazita2002 wrote: From: gazita2002 >I have also enjoyed the 'dance' bet Sukin and RobE. They have covered some really good stuff - sorry that's not more explicit but I think I'm a bit dyslexic!! ... S: I think we all got the message! ... >Anyway, happy wedding anniversary, I know its all a concept but I'm sure its been [mostly] a nice one :) ... S: Just celebrated with a nice bowl of noodles and by writing up my notes:-) We do attach a lot of importance to our concepts, don't we? Whether it's a story about a friend's pending loss of home or our happy anniversary - one we call sad, one we call happy, but is there any more akusala/kusala vipaka? Back to this moment and understanding the reality now. Metta Sarah ======= #111607 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Herman (111049) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On 24 October 2010 18:07, jonoabb wrote: > > > > > J: How could meditation not be about bhavana? Doesn't the improved > > behaviour reflect a better mental space? (As I've said before, nobody who > > uses the term 'meditation' here has ever bothered to explain what they mean > > by it. Perhaps you'd like to be the first? ;-)) > > > > > Phil has politely declined, so I'll take this opportunity: > > Meditation is something that occurs / is done when it is realised that the > alternatives are not satisfactory. > =============== J: Thanks for coming in here. There is of course no right or wrong answer; each person uses the term in his or her own way (it's not a translation of a term used in the Pali texts). Just to clarify, though, are you saying that meditation for you is an actual moment of realisation (or whatever you like to call it), or that it's something done in order to induce such a moment to occur (or both/neither)? Jon #111608 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Herman), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I think Sarah is saying that they do overlap, completely, and that daily life is the ruler, meditation merely occurring within it as an equivalent constituent to anything else. ... S: I'm saying that daily life consists of whatever kinds of consciousness arise from moment to moment. So, whether we wish to call a chunk of those cittas "meditation" or anything else, there are only ever conditioned dhammas arising now which can be known. Perhaps that's what you were saying? Metta Sarah ====== #111609 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Herman (111053) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, Sarah, pt, KenH and all, > ... > Something that others may be interested in, and which only became apparent > to me at the Manly get-together. pt and I were talking about sound, and how > its wave nature needs there to be at least one full wave/cycle/period in > order for sound to have some known quality like pitch. Sarah and Ken > politely let us talk for a while, and then Ken chipped in that sound is not > a wave or a particle, but a rupa. Sarah said something like that what we > were talking about was not actually relevant to the dhamma. She said that > the rupa of sound has no characteristics like pitch, volume. or timbre, it's > only characteristic is sound. > =============== J: The sound referred to in the texts is the audible data that is the object of hearing consciousness, that is to say, before there is any 'processing' leading to the object being recognised as being of a certain pitch, volume or timbre, and as the sound of a voice or telephone or whatever. As such, its only characteristic (apart from the 3 general characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anattaa) is that of being the object of hearing consciousness. > =============== > > Now it is no doubt the case that to our way of seeing things, the world is > > a world of 'thises' and 'thats' (people and things), and so the reality of > > the present moment as seen by us is necessarily a slice of that same > > perception. But to my understanding the Buddha is saying that the reality is > > in fact something else altogether. > > > > > All I can say is that if the Buddha conveyed that meaning, that means > someone must have been so deluded as to have heard him say it. > =============== J: To my (no doubt deluded ;-)) reading, the Buddha's description of the world as it truly is is different from the world as we take it to be. And this means I think that only by first gaining an intellectual understanding of what the Buddha said about the way things truly are can there be the development of the path at an experiential level. Jon #111610 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? sarahprocter... Hi Howard & Phil, > > Phil was under the impression that some students of Ajahn Sujin > > believe > > that the content of thinking is unimportant. ... S: As far as the development of satipatthana, the Path is concerned, I'd say "yes", it's just the understanding of the various namas and rupas that is important. We're used to attaching great importance to our ideas, but they are, after all, only ideas, even those which are wisely considered. Metta Sarah ========= #111611 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:31 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111059) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I'm a little behind on posts, so not sure if Phil has answered yet or not, but I'm interested in your question - how to define meditation. It's a more complicated question than it might seem, because there are many different types of meditation, and some of them have different objects or aims. It's much easier to define a type of meditation than to give a generic definition of meditation, but I will try both: > =============== J: Many thanks for attempting a definition (indeed, 2 of them!). > =============== > > a/ Buddhist meditation - practice of mindfulness and development of peacefulness towards developing awareness, leading to insight and awakening. The base practice is sitting meditation following the breath. More advanced practices involve special objects of meditation, such as observing and distinguishing mental and physical experiences, satipatthana and contemplating Dhamma. Other meditation practices include walking meditation, observation of ordinary life physical postures and activities, metta meditation, and corpse meditation, among others. > > b/ Meditation - practice of focusing the mind on spiritual factors in order to develop spiritual functions or awareness. Different disciplines include standing and sitting meditation, breathing meditation, energy circulation, mantra meditation, purification meditation, movement meditation, inner self meditation, inner light meditation, developing awareness or factors of awareness such as concentration, contemplation, etc. > =============== J: Your main definition is "the practice of mindfulness and development of peacefulness towards developing awareness, leading to insight and awakening". Leaving aside the duplication involved in the terms "mindfulness" and "awareness" (these are synonyms are they not?), your definition still doesn't explain what you mean by meditation in contexts such as the following, which I've taken from a later post/later posts of yours: "It all comes back to supporting the predominant dogma - Dhamma study: good! Meditation: bad! ..." "That is not the path that was outlined by the Buddha - Buddha spoke of both; understanding Dhamma and practicing meditation ..." "Breathing meditation is the base from which one can develop satipatthana" Perhaps you could say something about what makes 'practicing meditation' what it is. Thanks. Jon #111612 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:34 am Subject: Re: We all want more pleasure in our lives (an apology) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: I would say thriving. I'm reading the Theregata (? poetry of the arahants) in Japanese and it is incredibly inspiring. And I have made a big and very cool step in my personal life that involves letting go of a lot of intense craving and social entanglements. I would love to confess about it. Ok, what the heck. I have become a castrato!!!!! Ok, no. But a kind of cutting off of a very distracting social behaviour has come to be, the hunter has been put to bed. .... S: :-) ... > > I think I will write my own verse a la Theragata: > > > Outside the cold rain is pounding > In my room I sit wrapped in confidence > Lust lies outside the door > astonished at its banishment. > Violent anger has left town > Delusion is packing its bags. > Come on rain! Piss down on my head! > I am bald, do you think I care? ... S: Beautiful and well-written!! Appreciating all the good humour. Metta Sarah p.s for anyone new to the list and wishing to be inspired with some clever light relief, "Zany" in "useful posts" is a good place to start:-) I think Phil and Herman will be adding to it. ========= #111613 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:40 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: If there is insufficient sati and panna right now to know just what kind of citta is arising - directly, not by speculating on what it should be - how can we be sure what kind of cittas arose in the past or will arise in the future whilst doing our yoga, sitting in a quiet room or any other activity? > >R: Well, I take your point, but I would think that samatha might be kusala, or might not be. ... S: Er, no. Samatha is calm, pasaddhi cetasika, only arising with kusala cittas, all kinds of kusala citta. ... >R: Still, I think there is a tendency to think that there is no sense whether something is kusala or not until we are semi-enlightened, and I think we can have an instinct for it before that, even if our discernment is not 100% refined. It is sort of an absolute standard, whereas I am happy to have "partial" kusala along the way. :-) .... S: Good point....but as understanding develops, it knows more and more precisely what kusala is and gets to see there's a lot more akusala than imagined! .... > >R: If I am not in a fit of anger or sadness, and feel somewhat balanced, I think that is pretty good. ... S: We could put it the other way round and say that if we're not giving, not observing sila or developing understanding of samatha or satipatthana, then it's pretty bad. ... > > >S: Genuine samatha, genuine calm develops only when the cittas are kusala and the distinction between moments of kusala and moments of akusala are known. > > > > So is there (kusala) calm now? > >R: Uh....not really.... ;-) ... S: So now is the only time for such calm ;-) Let's not dream of another occasion. Metta Sarah ======= #111614 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:42 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111061) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I don't know, Jon, I am not a scholar of sutta or Abhidhamma, so maybe my understanding is way off; or maybe I just have a different way of looking at Dhamma than you do, but I don't see the path in terms of all this pre-ordained kusala and akusala, and this whole idea that you can't do things with kusala because you're most likely in akusala most of the time, and so you have to do nothing until you develop kusala, but until you develop enough kusala you won't know if what you're doing is kusala or not, so you'd better not do anything - to be an extremely circular argument that seems a giant justification for not doing things that you already think should not be done for reasons of dogma. > =============== J: The way you've put it certainly makes it sound circular ;-)). Fortunately, it's not as convoluted as you make it out to be. Simply stated, kusala arises at times and in a form that is not of anyone's choosing. This doesn't mean we should therefore 'do nothing' in order to avoid having more akusala; it means only that kusala cannot be made to arise by undertaking a 'practice'. It means, for example, that when the Buddha spoke of 'guarding the sense-doors' he was referring to a moment of actual satipatthana rather than to a practice designed to somehow influence or change the present mindstates. > =============== > When I say "dogma," I mean that it is always understood that meditation is "bad," and that no one anyone knows is advanced enough to have enough kusala to do it, which translates into "no one should do it because when you think it's kusala it's really akusala." So meditation is out. > > On the other hand, the "dogma" dictates that Dhamma study is always good. You acknowledge in passing that the intention for Dhamma study could also be akusala, but this gets dismissed and it turns out that everyone should be encouraged to study and understand Dhamma, because *that* is the path. > =============== J: I'm afraid you've mis-read me. Please see my message of a short time ago to Herman where I explained that conventional activities are neither support nor hindrance for the development of that path. In terms of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', all we need to know is that kusala is to be developed while akusala is not. This can never be achieved by characterising conventional actions as 'good' or 'bad'. > =============== Well, Buddha did give meditation instruction, but only to the most *advanced* disciples who were already doing it because of past accumulations, so that's okay. > =============== J: Not quite. I don't see it as a case of meditation (in the sense of formal practice) being OK for some but not for others. > =============== > It all comes back to supporting the predominant dogma - Dhamma study: good! Meditation: bad! > =============== J: Your take on what's been said ;-)). Actually, what we talk about here is right view and wrong view, rather than doing this or doing that. It's usually others who bring the discussion around to the subject of meditation as a form of 'practice'. > =============== That is not the path that was outlined by the Buddha - Buddha spoke of both; understanding Dhamma and practicing meditation; > =============== J: Still waiting for your definition of 'meditation' as used here, i.e., in the context of 'practicing meditation' as opposed to 'understanding Dhamma'. > =============== > In addition, the idea that the entire path is to be followed according to a kusala/akusala on/off switch is also, in my view, contrary to the path. Buddha defined what was wholesome and unwholesome in very ordinary terms. Anyone knows what is wholesome and unwholesome. Playing dice - bad! Sympathetic joy - good! It's not rocket science. > =============== J: To my understanding, the terms kusala and akusala refer the ethical quality of mental states, not of conventional deeds or activities. Do you see it differently? > =============== But you have turned kusala and akusala, using the Pali terms almost exclusively, into mystical cetasikas, which, like anatta as a positive characteristic, then take on a special life of their own, dissociated from actual wholesome and unwholesome activities. Not only mystical objects, but ones we have no access to, sort of like dhammas, part of a fleeting reality that only an arahant can really sense or understand. > =============== J: Never. There are wholesome and unwholesome mental states arising for everyone in ordinary daily life, regardless of the level of developed understanding. The question is, are they known as such, or are the akusala taken to be kusala (and perhaps vice versa also)? > =============== > I think it's valuable to see the anicca in our body as it gets older and work on detachment from that, instead of dismissing that as a "concept" and going back to fantasizing about invisible dhammas. > =============== J: This is the conventional idea of 'impermanence'. But the impermanence spoken of by the Buddha, as one of the 3 characteristics, appears almost invariably in the suttas in the context of dhammas (not of conventional objects). > =============== I think there is some value to seeing that our vision of things is a shadow of realities, but a main focus of the path is to see, discern, understand what we are really experiencing, let go, detach, work on developing real kusala ways of relating and living in the actual *now* of experience, > =============== J: The highest level of the development of kusala in the actual *now* is the understanding of dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anattaa. It would, however, be a mistake to think that this is something that could be 'worked on'. > =============== To understand those ultimate units, and their conditions is valuable, but that should be backed up by understanding of our relationship to concepts. When we cling to a person or thing, or cling to our sense of self, that is when we really have a chance to see anicca and anatta and dukkha *now,* not in a future lifetime when we will see the anatta-ness of fleeting dhammas, but the stuck heavy shadow-dhammas we are fixated on *now.* > =============== J: I would say that when there is clinging to a person or thing, the actuality of that moment as explained in the teachings is the clinging, an unwholesome mental factor. It is the awareness of such clinging and other dhammas that is the development of the path taught by the Buddha. The Buddha did not teach about 'understanding of our relationship to concepts'. He taught about understanding dhammas as they truly are. Jon #111615 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:56 am Subject: Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina] In the commentary to the Yamaka (mahaavara) it is said: “As to what has been asked: ‘Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving adheres, also the Bias of Anger adhere?’, the reply “Yes” appears to be not right. Question: Why is that? Answer: Because sensuous desire and anger do not arise at the same time. [Han] From the above, I can understand the reason for saying that the reply "Yes" appears to be not right. But if the Pali text says "Yes", why must the commentary says "No"? Pali text: 3. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa pa.tighaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. -------------------- [Han] As regards kaayasa"nkhaara and vaciisa"nkhaara, I found them in Sa"nkhaara Yamaka, not in Anusaya Yamaka. Sa"nkhaara Yamaka (Ka) anulomapuggalo 29. (Ka) yassa kaayasa"nkhaaro uppajjittha tassa vaciisa"nkhaaro uppajjitthaati? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana [pe]? AAmantaa. (Ka) yassa kaayasa"nkhaaro uppajjittha tassa cittasa"nkhaaro uppajjitthaati? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana [pe]? AAmantaa. -------------------- [Han] As regards manaayatana and dhammaayatana, I found them in Aayatana Yamaka, and not in Anusaya Yamaka. Aayatana Yamaka 21. (Ka) yassa manaayatana.m uppajjati tassa dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tassa manaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? Acittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m dhammaayatana.m uppajjati, no ca tesa.m manaayatana.m uppajjati. Sacittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m dhammaayatana~nca uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. (Manaayatanamuulaka.m) 25. (Ka) yattha manaayatana.m uppajjati tattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yattha vaa pana dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tattha manaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? Asa~n~nasatte tattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjati, no ca tattha manaayatana.m uppajjati. Catuvokaare pa~ncavokaare tattha dhammaayatana~nca uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. (Manaayatanamuulaka.m) 27. (Ka) yassa yattha manaayatana.m uppajjati tassa tattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana yattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tassa tattha manaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? Acittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m tattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjati, no ca tesa.m tattha manaayatana.m uppajjati. Sacittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m tattha dhammaayatana~nca uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. -------------------- I do not have the English translation for the above Pali texts. I will wait for your further posts. Respectfully, Han #111616 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Beginning to be like one of your epic series....don't worry, this is the last for now! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Can we start by defining satipatthana? I think my definition is more mundane than yours. :-) > > I would say the experiential practice is the development of sati and samatha through anapanasati and satipatthana leading to insight, panna and awakening. That would include discerning nama and rupa with increasing refinement. .... S: Actually, there are 3 meanings of satipatthana (you can find all the details in 'useful posts' under 'satipatthana: 3 meanings'. In brief, they are: a) the various realities as objects of insight, i.e rupas of the body, vedana, cittas, all dhammas - the fourfold satipatthana b) the path/way of developing understanding and awareness of these objects c) the path as followed by ariyan disciples before. .... > > S: So can there be the development of satipatthana right now and if so, what do you understand it to be? What is the distinction between satipatthana and "experiential practice" which you refer to? > >R: There's no distinction, except that I think there is benefit from sitting meditation as a setting for satipatthana. Satipatthana would be both the method and result of "experiential practice." .... S: If we understand the practice to be the understanding of dhammas now, then ideas of posture or situation don't apply. Anytime. ... > > >S: If there is understanding now of hardness now (with no idea of one's body), of feeling now, of consciousness now or of a mental factor, such as greed, now, would that be satipatthana or "experiential practice"? > >R: I'm not really distinguishing them, but it would be helpful to get a good technical definition of satipatthana from the Abhidhamma point of view. When you say "the development of sati to the level of satipatthana," can you tell me what that means in technical terms? ... S: It means exactly what I wrote in the para above. In other words, satipatthana is the "experiential practice", it refers to the degree of sati accompanied by panna (and other path factors such as right effort) which directly is aware and knows the various realities appearing now, one at a time. .... >R: What is the "level" of satipatthana? What does it represent. I understand it as a practice model. You seem to see it as an attainment. ... S: Sati arises with all kinds of kusala, as Nina mentioned. For example, at a moment of kindness or generosity, there is sati arising. (Actually, it arises with all sobhana cittas -even broader). However, satipatthana only refers to the direct knowing of namas and rupas, paramattha dhammas. .... > > > It seems clear to me that Buddha advised both dhamma study and meditation practice in order to develop insight and understanding. > > .... > > S: I think he advised the direct "study" (as in 'sikkhati')of dhammas. Surely this is "meditation practice" or bhavana and the sotapanna is the sekkha, the trainee, the one who studies correctly? > >R: The last part implies that only the sotapanna can engage in bhavana? ... S: Only the sotapanna has no more wrong view. But whenever understanding arises and develops, it is bhavana. There are two kinds of bhavana - samatha and vipassana. ... >R:Since bhavana is "development" of enlightened qualities and enlightenment factors, I would think it would have stages of development, from someone just practicing without much discernment, to the fulfillment of the practice. ... S: Yes, definitely. I may have led you down the garden path there:-) However, even in the beginning, there must be right understanding, otherwise it's not bhavana, not practice, at such times. .... > > S: Yes. Here by meditation, I like to think of bhavana, mental development/meditation. > >R: I like putting all those together, but I still think the specific practice of sitting has a particular effect. It's still just namas and rupas but the psychophysical setting seems to generate certain things... ... S: The question is whether those "certain things" have anything to do with the path! Metta Sarah ======== #111617 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. jonoabb Hi Robert E (111084) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Howard. > > > J: I agree that 'development' is a good term to use for 'bhavana'. > > Wikipedia has a good, short article on this subject: > =============== J: Thanks for the link. The following parts of the article I broadly agree with: ********************* Bhāvanā literally means "development" or "cultivating" or "producing" in the sense of "calling into existence." It is an important concept in Buddhist praxis (Patipatti). The word bhavana normally appears in conjunction with another word forming a compound phrase such as citta-bhavana (the development or cultivation of the heart/mind) or metta-bhavana (the development/cultivation of lovingkindness). Bhavana derives from the word Bhava meaning becoming. ... In addition, in the Canon, the development (bhāvanā) of samatha-vipassana is lauded. Subsequently, Theravada teachers have made use of the following compounds: * samatha-bhāvanā, meaning the development of tranquility. * vipassanā-bhāvanā, meaning the development of insight. The word bhavana is sometimes translated [J: unnecessarily and indeed erroneously, IMV] into English as 'meditation' so that, for example, metta-bhavana may be translated as 'the meditation on loving-kindness'. ... ********************* That leaves the following parts of the article, that I would question: ********************* In the Pali Canon bhāvanā is often found in a compound phrase indicating personal, intentional effort over time with respect to the development of that particular faculty[J: No comment!]. For instance, in the Pali Canon and post-canonical literature one can find the following compounds: * citta-bhāvanā, translated as "development of mind" or "development of consciousness." [J: Usually refers to samatha/jhana, I believe] * kāya-bhāvanā, translated as "development of body." [J: 'Kaya' here refers to rupas] * mettā-bhāvanā, translated as the "cultivation" or "development of loving-kindness." [J: No problem with this one] * paā-bhāvanā, translated as "development of wisdom" or "development of understanding." [J: Nor with this one] * samādhi-bhāvanā, translated as "development of tranquil-wisdom." It means the cultivation (bhavana) of a broad range of skills, covering everything from worldview, to ethics, livelihood and mindfulness. [J: There is no connotation of wisdom of the mindfulness or insight kind in samadhi-bhavana] ... Meditation as a state of absorbed concentration on the reality of the present moment is properly called dhyana (Sanskrit; Pali: jhana) or samadhi. [J: Jhana does not involve the seeing of the reality of the present moment] ********************* Jon #111618 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken) - In a message dated 11/6/2010 9:33:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi KenH, all who doubt trees's existence >KH: Yes, that is the standard rebuttal of anatta. It's like Alex >telling us to drive our cars into a tree: humorous maybe, but >completely missing the point. It doesn't miss the point. If complex objects didn't exist, you couldn't drive into a tree at 100 km/h. I don't recommend you testing the reality or behaving in line with what you believe in that way. You could start with walking through a wall. It isn't supposed to exist, so you won't bump yourself against it. Why engage in wrong views that believes in sold walls by walking around it. Behave in accordance with your view that walls don't exist and walk through one. ----------------------------------------------------------------- There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of their interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a wall" and to many other events. (Actually, it is far more complicated than that, but this will suffice for this discussion.) The things is, however, that there is no individual entity (i.e., something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) that is "the wall." We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables those phenomena to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable way. Our error is to attribute separate, self-existent reality to "the wall." (What I say here about the merely conventional existence of walls as things, I also say about the so called dhamma "realities" that many folks here seem to almost worship, but I lose *everybody* at this point! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------- What is the point in believing that "X doesn't exist" and behave like it exists? If it didn't exist, you would have no problem going through it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of a "wall entity" through which "one cannot go" is useful shorthand, but what really occurs is a complex series of psychophysical events/processes that we merely think of and describe in such terms. We usually take this thinking and describing seriously, unfortunately, mentally creating a "world of things," but that reification is an imposition upon reality. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO, philosophy that totally denies experiential truth and flies in the face of facts like above, isn't very useful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The experiential truth is indeed experiential truth, but our perspective on it and description of it in terms of entities is off the mark and constitutes the straightjacket that bind us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Alex ======================================== With metta, Howard Unreal /He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta ) #111619 From: "philip" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 12:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Sarah >We're used to attaching great importance to our ideas, but they are, after all, only ideas, even those which are wisely considered. Hmmm, don't you agree that harmful ideas lead to harmful behaviour? (Of course, the thinking itself is a kind of behaviour, but you know what I mean, verbal and physical behaviour, and ideas also lead to more bad mental behaviour.) Surely there isn't any doubt about that, is there? You're not saying that harmful behaviour is unimportant, are you? Metta, Phil #111620 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Phil) - In a message dated 11/7/2010 6:30:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & Phil, > > Phil was under the impression that some students of Ajahn Sujin > > believe > > that the content of thinking is unimportant. ... S: As far as the development of satipatthana, the Path is concerned, I'd say "yes", it's just the understanding of the various namas and rupas that is important. We're used to attaching great importance to our ideas, but they are, after all, only ideas, even those which are wisely considered. Metta Sarah ================================== For good or ill, how we think about things is critical. The content of our thinking, when deluded and beset by imagining, creates our incarceration, but the lifting of the delusion opens the cell door. With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #111621 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 7/11/10, philip wrote: >Hmmm, don't you agree that harmful ideas lead to harmful behaviour? (Of course, the thinking itself is a kind of behaviour, but you know what I mean, verbal and physical behaviour, and ideas also lead to more bad mental behaviour.) Surely there isn't any doubt about that, is there? You're not saying that harmful behaviour is unimportant, are you? .... S: No, I'm not saying that. (The more understanding of dhammas, the more the harm in even the slightest faults is seen, let alone seriously harmful behaviour.) I'm saying that without wrong view, without ignorance, there wouldn't be any harmful behaviour. The cause is the ignorance of the Truths. Metta Sarah ======= #111622 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, > > S: And the Buddha was one who achieved samma-sambodhi by virtue of > having > > accumulated the perfections over incalculable lifetimes. He taught > us about > > this and told us of his aspiration to do so 20 + Buddha sasanas ago. > So you > > wouldn't be denying the role of accumulations here, would you? > Herman: > > The Buddha rejects that his "aspirations" ie kamma were determined by his > prior accumulations. > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the aspiration. Metta, Sukinder #111623 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, >> Yes, it would still come down to the day to day and moment to moment >> actions of each individual. And besides, monks vs. laypersons is a >> distinction which does not deny within each of these, a great range of >> individuals very different to each other. And surely here, you can't deny >> that this is due to accumulations, can you? >> >> Herman: > Despite what has been said, you continue to look for ways of somehow turning > kamma into vipaka. That, in itself, is kamma, not vipaka. > Suk: Yes, every action through body, speech and mind is kamma. Perhaps the teaching on the Three Rounds of kilesa vatta, kamma vatta and vipaka vatta will help put things in perspective? The experience through the five senses is vipaka and this is followed by kamma. This kamma however is conditioned by the accumulations which consists of both kusala and akusala tendencies. So we have for example, seeing experiencing a pleasant object, and the kilesas conditioning attachment to arise immediately. If I say that someone is a kind person, this is pointing to the accumulations as manifested in kamma observed. It is not saying that he does not have akusala tendencies, neither does it say that he was somehow destined to be a kind person. In the case of distinguishing between someone with accumulations to become a monk and the layperson, this again is pointing to the accumulations as manifested in the kamma that is conditioned to arise. Of course you could argue why I need to refer to accumulations at all, and why not go by the kamma which is conditioned to arise from moment to moment. But I think this would be a different matter. From my side the impression is that your emphasizing kamma goes at the expense of understanding the role of accumulations. But of course you may be right and I do feel quite muddle headed, but you'll have to explain what in all this is a case of turning kamma into vipaka? Metta, Sukinder #111624 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > You said: > > > > > > You can continue to "instruct" me in the other thread. > > > > > > > Many mixed motives for sure, but I don't recall this being one of them. > > Frankly, I am skeptical about you ever coming to agree with me. And > > although I like to share thinking that it could be useful to some > > extent, my main motive here is to find out where exactly both of us > > agree and where we disagree and the reason for this. > > I appreciate it. Sorry if that comment was too strong - I was teasing. > I thought that you might have been, but being who I am I couldn't help ending up taking it seriously. Sorry. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #111625 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert, Robert: > > > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to get out of me, so why don't > > > you just say it? > > > > > > > Suk: Never mind what went on before this. But would it be correct to > > conclude now that your answer to my question: > > "What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience?" > > > > is: > > "Seeing experiences visible object and thinking experiences thoughts".? > > Rob: Seriously, Sukin, it depends on the context. I really would not > separate those two and put them side by side as separate elements. > Seeings experiences visible object, but not without a mental element. > What makes a visible object a discrete object? It is not just the > sensory element, but interpretation of the object. What is visible > object? There is more to it. I cannot participate in a multiple choice > operation where you are setting up all these little question and > answer scenarios. I prefer a direct conversation - say what you think > and I'll say what I think back. > S: I have been trying to make this particular discussion different from the ones we've had in the past. The reason I made the reference to "reading email" in my first post is because this is what both of us are doing and the same realities of seeing and thinking are arising. But if you feel that this is limiting, then I won't insist on going it that way. So I'll go ahead and respond to the comments you made above. You said: " I really would not separate those two and put them side by side as separate elements." S: But they are very different aren't they, one being a mental and the other a material reality? ====== Rob: Seeings experiences visible object, but not without a mental element. S: What is the mental element that you are referring to? ====== Rob: What makes a visible object a discrete object? It is not just the sensory element, but interpretation of the object. S: Visible object is reference to the one of the 28 material realities that are, which is experienced by seeing consciousness. It is an ultimate reality which manifests as different colors but without any interpretation such as this is blue or red or yellow etc. Any interpretation in terms of different colors or distinction between far and near, high and low, this or that object is the function of thinking. ====== Rob: What is visible object? There is more to it. S: Such as what? I think this is enough and I'll leave the rest of your post without commenting. Metta, Sukinder #111626 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - dicussions with A.Sujin November 2010 (1) nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 7-nov-2010, om 11:55 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Nina, on the first passage on nimitta which you quoted, was there a > particular question or aspect you'd like to hear more about? ------ N: Thank you for the quotes on nimitta and the four elements. Nothing special, but it is useful to hear more about this subject. Nina. #111627 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:02 pm Subject: Re: My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Ph: > I also chose to have the inside of the frame lined in a lovely sky blue colour. Whenever I become aware of it in my peripheral vision, which is often, the lovely color conditions reflection on the teaching that the mind is luminous and is visited by visiting defilements, That is my favorite lens enhancement as well. > there is a moment of appreciation and celebration of moments free from visiting defilements, Those are my favorite moments as well. > as I take a moment to breathe and intone "bud-dho" in a brief moment of thanks to the Buddha for the awakening he teaches. That is what I am most grateful for as well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111628 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:03 pm Subject: Re: My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: Phil: ...thankfully the glasses have asubha lenses installed so that when I tilt my head upwards, slightly, the asubha aspect of beings is also revealed. > ---------------------------------------- > > My wife says all bifocals do that. What would she know! You're married? Your wife must be a wonderful woman! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111629 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:55 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, Phil and Alex, > > --- > Ph: > > The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. > >> > > RE: > I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to say otherwise. > --- > > Some of us nutters keep asking you, "By whom are the instructions to be followed?" but you won't answer the question. > > ----------------------------- > RE: > But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the instructions in the Vism. For me, I sense that there are not conditions for various reasons to practice in line with Vism, but I feel that *any* meditation is still helpful for sila, > ----------------------------- I think this is my comment - some of the ones below may not be. > I am glad you are honest about that, Robert. Formal meditation is the one thing that unites all modern-day Buddhists: they may not know what is in the Tipitaka, and they may not even care, but they all have a ritual practice called meditation. As usual, you erect a straw man so that you blow it over without any effort. There are millions of Buddhists who are very familiar with part or all of the Tipitaka, who also practice meditation as part of the path, and not only do not see any contradiction in doing so, but understand as you do not, that this is the combined set of tools that Buddha left and intended to be used. "Woe unto he who is so attached to a view that he can't see beyond his own delusions." [quoting Robert Epstein of dsg there...] > ------------------------------------------- > RE: > It conditions more resistance to knee-jerk response to vipaka, so if one were to follow the instructions in Vism despite the impediments, it would not do any harm, and would be helpful in some ways, but deeper liberation wouldn't follow from it. > -------------------------------------------- I don't think this comment was from me, above here. If it was I was in a temporarily altered state of consciousness due to sleep deprivation, as I doubt I would have normally said "deeper liberation wouldn't follow from it." That sounds like someone who is semi-adherent to the Abhidhamma/dhamma view of meditation, so not sure if that is me. > I must admit, if I believed in a self that could practise and a self that could enter nibbana, I would be following a ritual too. You repeat the same mythological mistake here and below repeatedly, and repeat it dogmatically like a parrot - that one cannot practice without invoking the idea of a self that exists and can do things. You have never proven this, you just repeat it over and over again. Many others, including the world body of Buddhists since the time of Buddha, have agreed that one *can* practice meditation and learn the truth of anatta, not only at the same time, but *through* the direct insights brought by meditation. The reason that meditation works is not because there is an illusory self practicing it, but because it is in its nature to produce conditions for enlightenment. Obviously if it is practiced completely incorrectly this won't happen, but there is a correct way to practice and it is spelled out in sutta and elsewhere, so either prove that practice necessarily involves a self-concept, or stop claiming it is true without any evidence. Being able to repeat something that someone else taught you and that you think is true without any evidence is not proof of wisdom but the opposite. > -------------------------------- > Ph: > > How do you feel about the proposition that yes, of course, Vism contains meditation instructions, but because of circumstances many or most of us cannot follow those instructions properly? > >> > > RE: > Jumping in, > ---------------------------------- > > Before you do, I would just like to point out that *at no stage* do the descriptions ever become instructions. At no stage do obvious instructions become descriptions just because you replace one idea with the other according to your own dogmatic views. If something says "One should do X," it is an instruction whether you like it or not, and whether you agree or not, and whether you claim it over and over again or not. Your thoughts about what something is do not determine what it is. Sorry about that. > ------------------------------------ > RE: > my opinion goes along with an expression that is popular here in > Washington, D.C., in politics: One should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In other words, we should do the sila, meditation and comprehension that we are capable of now, not think we are not capable of doing real good, and based on this refrain from doing good. > -------------------------------------- > > Yes, if there was a controlling self then of course it should do those things. But what if there were no controlling self? What then? Then you can do it anyway, without a controlling self, since a controlling self is not necessary to either practice or intend to practice. Your entire theory about this is wrong, and you are suffering from wrong view. Since you have no self, maybe you should attend the akusala cittas that you are engaging and embracing that give you this false doctrine. > --------------------------------------------- > RE: > I disagree with those who feel it is worse to do meditation imperfectly than to not do it at all. If you don't practice at all, what do you have? Ideas and an untrained instrument of self. If you practice imperfectly at whatever level, you are developing some degree of Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness - maybe not the ultimate noble path factors, but still you are > developing the path. > ----------------------------------------------- > > All of those things might make sense if there was a controlling sense, I don't know. But I do know they no sense when there is not a controlling self. They do make sense without a controlling self, because meditation takes place, and the content of meditation takes place, and the effects of meditation take place, and the accumulations brought about by meditation as a set of conditions for those accumulations, all take place WITHOUT a controlling self, and do not need the concept of a controlling self to take place. Your theory about this, which you have learned through a particular doctrine, is wrong, and you are consequently suffering from wrong view which causes you to lose the benefits of Right Effort, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. > ------------------------------ > RE: > To say "I will not do anything until I am perfectly > prepared for it," in my view is like saying "I won't take any piano lessons until I can play Chopin Etudes at full speed." It's ridiculous. You can't develop the path without practice. And you can't start out perfect. Engage those things in the path, and in Buddha's arsenal, that you can do, and that you have the desire to do, and you will develop kusala tendencies. Desire for worldly things may be suspect, but desire for the path I think should be followed. Make the corrections as you go along. > ---------------------------- > > These are all good, commonsense, arguments. I would advise you to consider them again in the light of anatta. You will still find good answers, but they won't be anything like the conventional ones. I am happy to report that engaging in meditation has not prevented, but rather has enhanced, my understanding of anatta. Thank you for your concern, but I would look at your own intellectual understanding which is not only deprived of right view, but is suffering from meditation deprivation, a sorrowful state for a Buddhist. > -------------------------------------- > RE: > I knew a Christian woman from South Africa who used to carry her Bible around with her. She'd hold it up and show it to me and say "This is my weapon." She meant that it gave her strength and teaching and allowed her to live the right way, according to her path. Well, the Dhamma, and meditation, and Abhidhamma, whatever tools of the path you have the feeling for, are your weapons. Use them, and put them out in front of you as you move through samsara. > --------------------------------------- > > Be warned by those similarities. If your understanding of the Dhamma is basically the same as a conventional understanding, then start again from the beginning; you have taken a wrong turn. If you want to see what kind of turn you may have taken, look around at the intellectual environment you are engaging in your mind. If you find it filled with attachment to views, assertions that only your view is correct, and closed-mindedness to any incoming stimuli, you may have taken a wrong turn into a rather dark place. Perhaps meditation can help to remove these layers of defilements and return you to the natural state of luminous mind... Just a suggestion... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111630 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, Phil and Alex, > > --- > Ph: > > The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. > >> > > RE: > I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to say otherwise. I don't think this is my comment above. Do you happen to have the number of the original post so I can look it over? > Some of us nutters keep asking you, "By whom are the instructions to be followed?" but you won't answer the question. The instructions are followed by that which makes up the sentient organism. Although it may be seen as a concept from your intellectual [though unexperienced] heights, the Buddha clearly addressed the person as a means to creating conditions to elevate consciousness to the point where it could reach liberation. To deny this is to deny almost the entire body of sutta. By following the instructions, one can reach the point where the truth is revealed. Starting from the premise that there is no self to do anything, but only knowing this intellectually for your entire lifetime, is less than useless. You have successfully defeated the Buddha's program for enlightenment. Congratulations. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111631 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > What to infer from this I am unsure, but it is really interesting!! > > _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded) Seems like another potential challenge to the idea that we only experience through one sense at a time - but I guess it can be dhamma-ically explained that the mind combines the accumulations of both senses in rapid-fire back-and-forth action. Simpler explanation would be that we see and feel in tandem. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111632 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:13:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > What to infer from this I am unsure, but it is really interesting!! > > _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded) Seems like another potential challenge to the idea that we only experience through one sense at a time - but I guess it can be dhamma-ically explained that the mind combines the accumulations of both senses in rapid-fire back-and-forth action. Simpler explanation would be that we see and feel in tandem. ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, simpler, but I tend to believe the more complex one, for it seems to me that there is but one sense-consciousness operative at a time. Of course, what *seems* is not always what *is*. The maim=n thing that I infer from this effect is that what we perceive is constructed. ----------------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111633 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina Hi Ken H, On 7 November 2010 12:26, Ken H wrote: > > > <. . .> > KH: > "By whom are the instructions to be followed?" <. . .> > >> > > H: > The question surprises me. Healthy living bodies are quite capable of > following instructions. It happens all the time, anywhere you care to look. > ---- > > Yes, that is the standard rebuttal of anatta. It's like Alex telling us to > drive our cars into a tree: humorous maybe, but completely missing the > point. > > -------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> I must admit, if I believed in a self that could practise and a self > that could enter nibbana, I would be following a ritual too. > >> > > H: > Red herring. Straw man. Straw herring. Red man. > --------------- > > Red straw? :-) > > ---------------------- > H: > Nobody is claiming there is a self that practices. > ----------------------- > > But you just said living bodies were capable of following instructions. If > so, why can't they practise satipatthana? > > It is news to me that they can't. What do you know that I don't? It seems to me that keeping mindfulness to the fore is certainly something most of breathing, walking, defecating bodies do from time to time. -------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > Yes, if there was a controlling self then of course it should do > those things. But what if there were no controlling self? What then? > >> > > H: > Well, there never has been a controlling self, yet healthy living > bodies can still follow instructions. The world is amazing that way. > -------------------------- > > I'd be interested to know what happened to those "living bodies" when they > died. Are the reborn, or are they annihilated? > > Sorry, Ken, that is just more red straw :-) In the presence of the necessary conditions for rain, it rains. In the absence of any or all of these conditions, it doesn't rain. Questions about what happens to the rain while it is not raining, betray a certain, incorrect viewpoint ie that rain is a self-existent thing phenomenon. The same applies to question about what happens to living things when they are dead. In the presence of the necessary conditions there is life, in the absence of any of those conditions, there isn't life. Cheers Herman #111634 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [7] egberdina Hi Sarah, Sukin and all, On 5 November 2010 13:37, sarah abbott wrote: > > This is an interesting discussion about being rich. Figurative and literal meanings are being intermixed freely. This has some questionable consequences. > . > > K.Sujin: A person who is so sick, who cannot walk, but has a lot of money, > is he rich? > . > Sarah: No. > Sorry, I am going to disagree here :-). Having a lot more money than others is what being rich means. I would fully agree with you if you were to say that having a whole lot of money will do you any good on your death bed, but even there, if you have a whole lot of money you can afford the best palliative care possible. And the same goes for any who are just sick, or very sick. The reality is that the best health care is very expensive. Rich people can get better health care. Dirt poor people can't get any. . > Jon: He could be in constant pain all the time. > . > K.Sujin: He cannot experience very pleasant [objects] like other people. > . > So, he calls his personal physician on his Blackberry with an unlimited plan :-) The doc administers morphine, and pleasantness arises. > Sarah: So the 'rich' always refers to the concept about pleasant experience > through the senses. > . > K.Sujin: Yes. > . > Sarah: This is why the Dhamma is so subtle. One can read something which > seems very straightforward about kamma and vipaka, but without quite a lot > of understanding of Abhidhamma, it's not going to be understood. > . > K.Sujin: Yes. In reality, was the Buddha richer after his enlightenment? > . > Sukin: Actually, why even bring the concept of 'rich' into this? > . > K.Sujin: Because people know concept, they know nothing about realities. > Without the sense objects, can anyone say anyone is rich? > . > Sukin: The idea of being rich or poor is completely different. > . > K.Sujin: Just the experience of pleasant and unpleasant sense objects. > . > Sukin: Why call it 'rich'? > . > K.Sujin: Who is rich in hell? > . > What a very interesting non-sequitur :-) This doesn't follow from anything that has been said. Sukin: Why bring the concept up? > Exactly, Sukin. We agree! . > K.Sujin: In hell, pleasant or unpleasant objects? So, who is rich? > > Who is in hell? Cheers Herman #111635 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? truth_aerator Hi Howard, KenH, all, >There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) > that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of >their interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a >wall" and to many other events. (Actually, it is far more >complicated than that, but this will suffice for this discussion.) >The things is, however, that there is no individual entity (i.e., >something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) > that is "the wall." But there is "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena". Right? I wasn't saying about indivisible whole. Of course the whole can be divided into its part, if not physically, then theoretically - that is why it is a "whole". The fact that it can be divided, does show that it, as "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena" does exist to be divided in the first place. > We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called > "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables >those phenomena to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable >way. Our error is to attribute separate, self-existent reality to >"the wall." Not necessarily. Even a non-Buddhist can know that a tree or wall is made of many parts. It doesn't take Dhamma to come up with the idea that "wholes do not exist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism With metta, Alex #111636 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Thank you for your reply. > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 6-nov-2010, om 22:15 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > > Where and how is memory stored? > -------- > N: Sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance, accompanies each citta, as >you know. It marks and recognises the object experienced at that >moment. Yes, I know that sanna cetasika does that. But if it is momentary, the difficulty is in explaining how memory is retained from moment to moment. Why do we forget and then some time later remember things that have happened long ago? Was that memory being passed with EVERY citta until it surfaced and gave its effects? Did I understand this correctly? With metta, Alex #111637 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:12 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Jon, > J: If a person who is interested in the teachings is fortunate >enough to have the Dhamma explained in a way that is suitable for >his/her level of understanding, then of course it may well condition >some level of awareness to arise. I agree on the above. > That arising of awareness may occur at a time quite removed from >the hearing or reading concerned, after much further reflection. As >you will know from personal experience, reflection on things heard >or read may occur throughout the day, when performing everyday tasks >or watching TV. > >Of course, if one holds the view that awareness can only arise at >times of 'practice' and not at other times also, that would >obviously be an obstacle to there actually being any awareness at >such other times. What it seems to me is that powerful effort is required for powerful result. There are many suttas that do strongly talk about effort in a way that doesn't seem to say "it just happens". In anapanasati sutta there are frequent passages like: "He trains thus. I shall breath in...". It doesn't seem to be past passive. > J: In the suttas in question, I do not read the Buddha as >prescribing specific intentional activities to be undertaken. Here is the biggest disagreement. The suttas, and even the commentaries do talk about deliberate and strong effort. While I agree that it is fully conditioned, the deliberate and strong effort does occur. And that effort leads to >Rather I think he was explaining the different stages in the >development of the path. different stages of development of the path. With metta, Alex #111638 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Herman > > (111034) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > > J: I can only repeat that the conditions for the development of the path do > > > not include the undertaking of specific intentional activities. What more is > > > there to say? ;-)) > > > > It leaves unanswered the question: is the undertaking of specific > > intentional activities a hindrance to development? > > =============== > > J: This question comes up frequently in one form or another. Alex and I have been going back and forth on this general area for more than a year now, I think ;-)), while a recent post to me from Robert E raises the same issue. > > To my understanding, specific intentional activities (whether regarded in conventional terms as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral') are neither a support nor a hindrance for the development of the path. Those supports and hindrances are other factors (mainly mental states) but not intentional activities per se. > > As regards support, the factors specifically mentioned in the >suttas include a/ hearing the true dhamma and b/ reflecting on what >has been thus heard and understood. And you've left a 4th item: "practice of dhamma in accordance with the dhamma". Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. SN 55.5 with metta, Alex #111639 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:45 pm Subject: Friendship is Universal! bhikkhu5 Friends: Good Friendship is Universal among all Beings! Elephant pictures by AFP from Sidney Zoo. The kissing lion was rescued by the Colombian Lady, when abandoned and abused by a travelling circus. She fed it up and cared for it in her camp for rescued animals. Apparently it is quite grateful for that good kindness. A truly genuine hug to mama! <..> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <..> #111640 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Phil, On 7 November 2010 09:12, philip wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > > > The only reason I am making the point is that people should not > > expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily > life. > > Disagree! Daily life is where sila is developed, > I agree with you, if you mean that it is in amongst daily life that sila is developed. thus it where where the foundation of everything that is conditional on > proper sila is built. (i.e the entire path.) > It might sound like just be a technical point, but I wonder whether the development of sila is dependent on daily life. Would I be too nitpicky if I suggested that sila is an attitude, or a bunch of attitudes, and that the development of sila is thus a modification of attitudes? Certainly, we carry around our attitudes towards specific things like ourselves, different football or baseball teams, different specific folks who may be heroes or villains to us, people in different castes, clans or classes, young delectable men or women etc And such attitudes can translate into specific automatic reactions, whenever we are not mindful. But our attitudes to daily life, they don't really originate from daily life, do they? It is not written on the cleavage of a pretty young lady that it needs a certain kind of reaction. Nor does the sight of a beggar, or a decrepit old person, or a rotting corpse necessitate any specific response. So, it is in that respect that I wonder whether sila depends on daily life, or develops on the basis of anything in daily life. But I agree with you that having a lot of interest in bhavana in daily life > is not in line with the Buddha's gradual way, we can't aspire to development > of deep understanding if we are trundling around with ordinary householder > lifestyles. There are stirring classical anecdotes (e.g awakening while > cooking) exceptions to the rule, but I think people are just playing with > wishes if they think they are relevant to us. > > I agree with everything you say. Cheers Herman #111641 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Howard, On 7 November 2010 12:10, wrote: > > The only reason I am making the point is that people should not > expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily life. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > I'm unclear on this point. "Foundation" in what sense? One could > awaken in the midst of ordinary circumstances given appropriate prior > training > and current, triggering conditions, namely an ideal mind set plus, say, a > sudden sound or a "turning word" (to use a Zen term). > =================================== > > Yes, no doubt about that. What I doubt is that daily life would be a causal factor for such an event. And to the extent that by daily life one means being immersed in the activities of daily life, daily life would certainly prevent any such event occurring, IMO. Cheers Herman #111642 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 7 November 2010 19:10, sarah wrote: > > > >But we are just not allowed to refer to this latter reality as > > reality. Thinking, proliferating and labeling happen, but they are not > real. > > Is that right? > ... > S: They are real - all kinds of thinking with various mental states. > However, the ideas or labels thought about are just concepts. For example, > now there may be thinking about squiggles or ideas about what is read. The > thinking is very real. The squiggles or ideas are just, well, ideas. > . > This is an interesting perspective. You seem to be saying that seeing is real, seen object is real, hearing is real, heard object is real, thinking is real, but thought object is not real?? That does not reconcile easily with, say, MN28 "Now if internally the intellect is intact but externally ideas do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. > ... > Metta > > Sarah > > > > > Vicki is far wiser than me. She can see no value at all in sitting > around > > and talking about how sitting around and talking isn't real. > > > > As for me, I'm a glutton for such frivolity :-) > ... > S: Oh well, we'll have Vicki join us for a little each time and who knows? > Maybe you'll both see the Dhamma as a little more than mere frivolity:-) > Vicki and I both understand that denying the reality of what we are doing, when we are doing it, such as participating in a nice social gathering, eating cake, enjoying the view, is frivolity. We both understand that reality is defined in terms of what is being done. I don't think denials of kamma are Dhamma :-) Cheers Herman #111643 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! egberdina Hi Jon, On 7 November 2010 22:13, jonoabb wrote: > > > It leaves unanswered the question: is the undertaking of specific > > intentional activities a hindrance to development? > > =============== > > J: This question comes up frequently in one form or another. Alex and I > have been going back and forth on this general area for more than a year > now, I think ;-)), while a recent post to me from Robert E raises the same > issue. > > To my understanding, specific intentional activities (whether regarded in > conventional terms as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral') are neither a support nor > a hindrance for the development of the path. Those supports and hindrances > are other factors (mainly mental states) but not intentional activities per > se. > > I infer from what you say above that theme-less awareness release is not related to the path, in your view. MN43 "There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release." It is clear from the text above that an act of will is a pre-requisite in this instance. <..> > Hoping this answers your question. > > Yes, thank you. We now have a new question, though; do you still maintain that an act of will is not a necessary support? :-) Cheers Herman #111644 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! egberdina Hi Alex, On 8 November 2010 10:18, truth_aerator wrote: > > > As regards support, the factors specifically mentioned in the >suttas > include a/ hearing the true dhamma and b/ reflecting on what >has been thus > heard and understood. > > And you've left a 4th item: > "practice of dhamma in accordance with the dhamma". > > Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. > Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Appropriate > attention is a factor for stream-entry. > Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. > SN 55.5 > > Exactly so. And I would say that whether the first three have happened at all only becomes apparent when the 4th is being done. Cheers Herman #111645 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 2:29 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------------- <. . .> RE: > I don't think this is my comment above. Do you happen to have the number of the original post so I can look it over? --------------- My mistake! It was 111524, and I have got you confused with Phil. Apologies to both of you. :-) Ken H #111646 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 3:20 am Subject: Re: Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? kenhowardau Hi Alex and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Howard, KenH, all, > > >There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) > > that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of >their interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a >wall" and to many other events. (Actually, it is far more >complicated than that, but this will suffice for this discussion.) >The things is, however, that there is no individual entity (i.e., >something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) > > that is "the wall." > > But there is "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena". Right? ---------- KH: Wrong! Apart from momentary kalapas and lokas there is no mention in the Tipitaka of bunches of dhammas. --------------- A: > I wasn't saying about indivisible whole. Of course the whole can be divided into its part, if not physically, then theoretically - that is why it is a "whole". The fact that it can be divided, does show that it, as "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena" does exist to be divided in the first place. ---------------- You are right; 'bunch' is just another word for 'whole.' However, you are wrong in thinking there could be such a thing in ultimate reality. ------------------------ H: > > We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called > > "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables >those phenomena to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable >way. Our error is to attribute separate, self-existent reality to >"the wall." >> A: > Not necessarily. Even a non-Buddhist can know that a tree or wall is made of many parts. It doesn't take Dhamma to come up with the idea that "wholes do not exist". ------------------------- KH: I think you have misunderstood Howard's explanation. He was espousing a popular Mahayana theory, according to which everything other than Nibbana lacks sabhava. My advice is to stick to the two basic categories - concepts and realities (pannatti and paramattha dhammas). When you try to join those two categories into one whole, or bunch, you lose the entire point of the Dhamma. Ken H #111647 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 4:59 am Subject: Re: metta, epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Anything you (or anyone else) wants raised while we're here, for a few days only? Well, since you asked... I understand completely if you don't get to this subject, but I of course would greatly appreciate the latest responses on meditation/bhavana - 1. Can it be kusala for the ordinary person with some knowledge of Dhamma to practice anapanasati? 2. Can sitting meditation directed towards development of sati/awareness create conditions for greater understanding? 3. Is it possible to practice sitting meditation without self-view being supported or magnified? 4. Are there some for whom it just naturally arise because of past accumulations to sit and practice anapanasati/satipatthana meditation for whom it would thus be kusala? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111648 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Just this moment, now, wherever we find ourselves, for any level of Right View to arise or not. Waiting for it would not be the Path. Nor would trying to make it happen. Good reminder, as always. May all the path factors arise immediately in this very moment! :-) I'm joining Phil in shooing away all the defilements [with special glasses or whatever is available] and letting the luminous mind shine through right now. > p.s Love your Formal Dance with Sukin! Poor Sukin sound like Alice in Wonderland, finding you unwilling to play the rules/steps he's been taught! :-) I feel very bad to be so uncooperative, but I learned all my bad habits from Herman! :-))) > Hope you both keep it up - we really laughed a lot as we caught up, reading out loud (of course!) this morning to celebrate our wedding anniversary (29!). Wow, congratulations on a very happy occasion! And I am honored to have my bad behavior included in the out-loud reading on such a special day. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111649 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:12 am Subject: Re: metta, epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: ...right view,even if on an intellectual level, can be a condition for one to keep ones mouth shut when I know its jst 'crap' that I'm about to sprout. Wish I could do that! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111650 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I am watching DVD's of the Sri Lanka trip of my Thai friends. Someone > said that he realizes that listening a lot is necessary. If one only > listens a few times how could the depth of Dhamma be penetrated which > is as deep as the ocean? If one wishes to develop pa~n~naa very fast > it is not the way. He said this so sincerely and I was impressed. > I agree. We hear all the time about seeing and visible object and > that we do not see people. We have to hear this again and again so > that we eventually will understand that no person is seen. > > It is also good to realise when we are just a little trying comes in > to know specific objects. Lobha again. I was at a house concert last > night (a nephew is marvellous with the cello, playing Bach) and I > realized that trying to hear just sound, not a melody, is the wrong > way. When there are conditions for attachment to the music it is just > that, it is conditioned. And we should not try to know lobha, this is > not possible before distinguishing clearly the different between > naama and ruupa at the first stage of insight. I realized that > listening to the Dhamma has helped me a lot. These were all very good notes, and helpful. It's funny but I guess we each need to hear about certain things at different times - that had not occurred to me. When I hear about sati right now, and certain other subjects, it is like I am being given "spiritual food." Other subjects don't hit me at the moment, because I don't have the accumulations for them or conditions aren't right. So I realize that I need to hear about certain things at certain times. I could listen to further notes on sati for hours, because it is "up" on the agenda for 'these cittas' that are arising. I am sure the wheels of vittaka and the other cetasikas that I like are popping up and doing a little work. That is another thing - vittaka - I keep wanting to hear more about those mental factors that do investigations and contemplation. And suddenly I am very interested in the Visudhimagga. Before it didn't really interest me, before a few months ago. So it is very interesting to observe that everything comes from conditions. Again, thanks for the notes on sati. I should go look at the commentary on the satipatthana sutta next now that I know where it is. And any other notes you think to give on sati and satipatthana will of course be absorbed happily. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111651 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:31 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Phil > > (111036) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jon > > ... > > > J: Thanks for taking the trouble to come back and mention this specifically. (Would be interested to know what prompted the change in your view on this!) > > > > > > Ph: The Vism text passage did it for me, the conditions laid out there make it clear that the clansman in question is not "a beginner" in the sense we would understand it. > > =============== > > J: Thanks. Yes, the Vism passage is pretty clear if read carefully and in full. Unfortunately, most people seem to prefer a rather selective reading ;-)) Yes, that is my preference. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111652 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (& Herman), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > I think Sarah is saying that they do overlap, completely, and that daily life is the ruler, meditation merely occurring within it as an equivalent constituent to anything else. > ... > S: I'm saying that daily life consists of whatever kinds of consciousness arise from moment to moment. So, whether we wish to call a chunk of those cittas "meditation" or anything else, there are only ever conditioned dhammas arising now which can be known. > > Perhaps that's what you were saying? Of course. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111653 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:37 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Of course, if one holds the view that awareness can only arise at times of 'practice' and not at other times also, that would obviously be an obstacle to there actually being any awareness at such other times. Nobody thinks that, Jon. I don't think there is anyone who meditates who doesn't agree that awareness, not to mention insight, can arise at any time, and depends on a number of conditions coming together at a particular time. In the stories of various sects of Buddhism, the conditions/accumulations created by meditation, Dhamma study, association within the sangha, wise reflection and other things, can have their effects shown at any time. As with all things, moments of awareness or insight cannot be planned or controlled, but they can be conditioned by kusala activities such as Dhamma study and meditation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111654 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:50 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: ...Leaving aside the duplication involved in the terms "mindfulness" and "awareness" (these are synonyms are they not?), I was thinking of awareness in that sentence as more 'advanced,' and mindfulness as the basic function of discerning, but they are not necessarily different. > your definition still doesn't explain what you mean by meditation in contexts such as the following, which I've taken from a later post/later posts of yours: > > "It all comes back to supporting the predominant dogma - Dhamma study: good! Meditation: bad! ..." > > "That is not the path that was outlined by the Buddha - Buddha spoke of both; understanding Dhamma and practicing meditation ..." > > "Breathing meditation is the base from which one can develop satipatthana" > > Perhaps you could say something about what makes 'practicing meditation' what it is. Thanks. I'm not sure what is missing from all those snippets, but I will try again: I see meditation in the context we are talking about as the actual act of sitting down in a still and upright position, settling down and focusing on a specific object. The main object is the breath. During focus on the breath, two things happen: the breathing and the body relax, leading to a more peaceful state of mind; and awareness becomes more focused on the breath, leading to increased mindfulness. So samatha and sati are developed to some degree by this practice. In addition to focusing on the breath, it is possible to attend with mindfulness whatever arises in the moment. If one is distracted from the breath, one sees where the citta goes, what object it lands on and just discerns that with mindfulness to the degree possible at that moment. There are other meditation objects and activities possible. One may discern and distinguish nama and rupa as they arise, or one may focus on identifying dhammas according to satipatthana - body sensation, vedana, etc. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111655 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:54 am Subject: Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: Well, I take your point, but I would think that samatha might be kusala, or might not be. > ... > S: Er, no. Samatha is calm, pasaddhi cetasika, only arising with kusala cittas, all kinds of kusala citta. I don't think I put that clearly - the experience that one thinks is samatha can be kusala "real" samatha, or not. ... > > > So is there (kusala) calm now? > > > >R: Uh....not really.... ;-) > ... > S: So now is the only time for such calm ;-) Let's not dream of another occasion. I'm a little more calm and peaceful tonight, so either my samatha is improving, or I'm just very tired. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111656 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept philofillet Hi Herman > It might sound like just be a technical point, but I wonder whether the > development of sila is dependent on daily life. Would I be too nitpicky if I > suggested that sila is an attitude, or a bunch of attitudes, and that the > development of sila is thus a modification of attitudes? I see your point, and I think you could be closer to a stricter understanding in what you say, that it is not in the objects we encounter in daily life that the challenges to sila lie, but in the accumulated attitudes we have and the conditioned responses that result from them. So really you are closer to something like Sarah and others would say, undersanding is the most important thing. But those attitudes/accumulated defilments need to be weakened, and the only way they can be weakened is in their response to objects, isn't it? And it's in daily life that multifarious objects are encountered, isn't it? I guess I would feel different if I had an intensive meditation practice, but for me and my wee bit of pleasant meditation, the relatively intense practice is in daily life, out and about in Tokyo... So yes, a modification of attitudes/defilements through repetitive exposure to objects, there is a sutta that stresses this point, it is when objects are encountered again and again and the defiled response doesn't occur that the sense doors are being guarded, and in one sutta sila is conditional on guarding the sense doors, which makes sense I think... No sharp thinking there, I'm a bit brain dead after a long day at work... Metta, Phil #111657 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Sarah > S: No, I'm not saying that. (The more understanding of dhammas, the more the harm in even the slightest faults is seen, let alone seriously harmful behaviour.) > > I'm saying that without wrong view, without ignorance, there wouldn't be any harmful behaviour. The cause is the ignorance of the Truths. Sure there wouldn't, I do understand that the eradication of ignorance is the only real liberation. But that is not for me. If I counted on understanding of dhammas to provide protection from harmful behaviour, I would be doomed. The notion that anything to do with Dhamma is anything but a way to be happier and have a more positive self-image is not there for me, my mind is not sharp enough to have faith in liberating understanding of dhammas, awareness of the three characteristics. There is just a big screen of thinking, all that I experience is with a subject perceiving object, even when thinking (and it is only thinking for me) about momentary sensory experiences it is all subject perceiving object, I am thoroughly locked into self view. I can accept that there is no lasting self in theory, but my experience of life is thoroughly rooted in self. That won't change in this lifetime, I think. So the kind of understanding you write about above is not for me. My only option is to perfect the self and hope that there will be better conditions to see through it someday, or some lifetime. So now my goal is to be harmless and happy and helpful. Do you know what I mean by a kind of screen of thinking? Everything I see, hear, taste, touch, smell, it's all experienced through thinking, not directly. So the idea of awareness of dhammas seems very distant and unrelated to me. Anyways, that's probably another topic. I do thinking that having a mind full of Dhamma ideas like you do is likely to condition good behaviour, but I think that is a mind full of guiding concepts rather than awarenes and understanding of dhammas, for me at least. Metta, Phil #111658 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han, I am very glad with your questions and remarks and also with the Pali text you found. This helps me to go more deeply into the texts. Op 7-nov-2010, om 12:56 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > In the commentary to the Yamaka (mahaavara) it is said: > As to what has been asked: Does to (every) one to whom the Bias > of Sensuous Craving adheres, also the Bias of Anger adhere?, the > reply Yes appears to be not right. > Question: Why is that? > Answer: Because sensuous desire and anger do not arise at the same > time. > > [Han] From the above, I can understand the reason for saying that > the reply "Yes" appears to be not right. > But if the Pali text says "Yes", why must the commentary says "No"? ---------- N: We have to get used to the elaborate way the commentary sometimes explains things. A question is asked and an answer given, and then, when the question and answer are considered again, there seems to be a contradiction. It is because different aspects are given at different moments. All with the purpose of clarifying the nature of the latent tendencies. These do not arise, they are just lying dormant in each citta that arises and falls away and conditions the following citta by anantara paccaya and samanantara paccaya. For those who have not eradicated any anusayas, the non-ariyan common people, all seven of them are there, such as sensuous desire, anger and the others. And this is so, as is repeated several times, so long as they have not been eradicated. However, when the arising of sensuous desire and anger are considered, thus, arising at the present moment, then there would be a contradiction. Then the answer is no. We have learnt before that the term arising is used for the anusayas with regard to conditioning the arising of akusala citta, pariyutthaana kilesa. When at a particular moment there is an opportunity for the arising of sensuous desire, the anusaya of sensuous desire conditions the arising of lobha-muulacitta. Then, it would not be possible that the latent tendency of pa.tigha conditions at the same time the arising of dosa-muulacitta. It is no contradiction that all of them together are lying dormant in the citta. --------- > > Pali text: > > [Han] As regards kaayasa"nkhaara and vaciisa"nkhaara, I found them > in Sa"nkhaara Yamaka, not in Anusaya Yamaka. > > Sa"nkhaara Yamaka > > (Ka) anulomapuggalo > 29. (Ka) yassa kaayasa"nkhaaro uppajjittha tassa vaciisa"nkhaaro > uppajjitthaati? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yassa vaa pana [pe]? AAmantaa. > (Ka) yassa kaayasa"nkhaaro uppajjittha tassa cittasa"nkhaaro > uppajjitthaati? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yassa vaa pana [pe]? AAmantaa. -------- N: I do not understand: yassa vaa pana. ---------- > > [Han] As regards manaayatana and dhammaayatana, I found them in > Aayatana Yamaka, and not in Anusaya Yamaka. > > Aayatana Yamaka > > 21. (Ka) yassa manaayatana.m uppajjati tassa dhammaayatana.m > uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yassa vaa pana dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tassa manaayatana.m > uppajjatiiti? > Acittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m dhammaayatana.m uppajjati, no > ca tesa.m manaayatana.m uppajjati. Sacittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m > tesa.m dhammaayatana~nca uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. > (Manaayatanamuulaka.m) ------- Acittaka: yes this is clear as is explained further on. For those in the asa~n~nasatta plane, there is no manaayatana, no citta, but there is dhammaayatana which includes subtle ruupas. > > 25. (Ka) yattha manaayatana.m uppajjati tattha dhammaayatana.m > uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yattha vaa pana dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tattha > manaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? > Asa~n~nasatte tattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjati, no ca tattha > manaayatana.m uppajjati. Catuvokaare pa~ncavokaare tattha > dhammaayatana~nca uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. > (Manaayatanamuulaka.m) ------- Catuvokaara and pa~ncavokaara: where there are four khandhas (the naamakkhandhas) and five khandhas, maanayatana and dhammaayatana are together. ------- > 27. (Ka) yassa yattha manaayatana.m uppajjati tassa tattha > dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yassa vaa pana yattha dhammaayatana.m uppajjati tassa tattha > manaayatana.m uppajjatiiti? > Acittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m tattha dhammaayatana.m > uppajjati, no ca tesa.m tattha manaayatana.m uppajjati. > Sacittakaana.m upapajjantaana.m tesa.m tattha dhammaayatana~nca > uppajjati manaayatana~nca uppajjati. ------ N: Again as explained above about the asa~n~nasatta plane. This is clear. More difficult for me to understand is: kaayasa"nkhaara, vacisa"nkhaara and cittasa"nkhaara. > > -------------------- Nina. #111659 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Rob E and pt, Op 8-nov-2010, om 6:24 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > And suddenly I am very interested in the Visudhimagga. Before it > didn't really interest me, before a few months ago. So it is very > interesting to observe that everything comes from conditions. ------ N: Not an easy reading. I found that it makes all the difference to also study its commentary. Ch XIV is about the five khandhas and on dsg I made a study. I cannot find this in the files, perhaps pt can help. ------ Nina. #111660 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:41 am Subject: Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina] We have to get used to the elaborate way the commentary sometimes explains things. A question is asked and an answer given, and then, when the question and answer are considered again, there seems to be a contradiction. It is because different aspects are given at different moments. All with the purpose of clarifying the nature of the latent tendencies. These do not arise, they are just lying dormant in each citta that arises and falls away and conditions the following citta by anantara paccaya and samanantara paccaya. For those who have not eradicated any anusayas, the non-ariyan common people, all seven of them are there, such as sensuous desire, anger and the others. And this is so, as is repeated several times, so long as they have not been eradicated. However, when the arising of sensuous desire and anger are considered, thus, arising at the present moment, then there would be a contradiction. Then the answer is no. We have learnt before that the term arising is used for the anusayas with regard to conditioning the arising of akusala citta, pariyutthaana kilesa. When at a particular moment there is an opportunity for the arising of sensuous desire, the anusaya of sensuous desire conditions the arising of lobha-muulacitta. Then, it would not be possible that the latent tendency of pa.tigha conditions at the same time the arising of dosa-muulacitta. It is no contradiction that all of them together are lying dormant in the citta. ---------- [Han] Thank you very much for your above explanation. It is all very clear. I also thank you for your explanation on kaayasa"nkhaara, vaciisa"nkhaara, and cittasa"nkhaara, and manaayatana and dhammaayatana Pali texts. But what confused me was what are they doing in Anusaya Yamaka, in Thai version that you are currently referring to, while they belong to the different Yamakas? Respectfully, Han #111661 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han, Op 8-nov-2010, om 11:41 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I also thank you for your explanation on kaayasa"nkhaara, > vaciisa"nkhaara, and cittasa"nkhaara, and manaayatana and > dhammaayatana Pali texts. > > But what confused me was what are they doing in Anusaya Yamaka, in > Thai version that you are currently referring to, while they belong > to the different Yamakas? ------ N: Because they are in the co to the anusaya yamaka: mahaavaaro 1. anusayavaarava.n.nanaa yathaa hi ``yassa manaayatana.m uppajjati, tassa dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti `aamantaa', assaasapassaasaana.m uppaadakkha.ne tesa.m kaayasa"nkhaaro ca uppajjati, vaciisa"nkhaaro ca uppajjatii''tiaadiisu manaayatanadhammaayatanaani kaayasa"nkhaaravaciisa"nkhaaraa ca ekakkha.ne uppajjanti, na tathaa kaamaraagapa.tighaa. ---------- N: But here they are just mentioned shortly as illustration and it is good you could go back and find these texts with more details. ----- Nina. #111662 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:34 am Subject: Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina] But here they are just mentioned shortly as illustration and it is good you could go back and find these texts with more details. [Han] Thank you very much once again for your kind explanation. Respectfully, Han #111663 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:42 am Subject: Re: metta, gazita2002 hallo Rob :) you'll notice that I said 'can be a condition' not 'is a condition' as most of the time the crap jst comess out anyway. and unfortunately sometimes even when I know before I say anything, that its not a good thing to say - I jst go ahead and say it anyway. that doesnt happen a lot but when it does and I wonder why did that occurr, I think mayb its something to do with the anusayas, you know, those nasty defilements that are present in each citta that arise when the time is right, so to speak. patiencee, courage and good cheer, azita #111664 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 8 November 2010 01:45, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > S: And the Buddha was one who achieved samma-sambodhi by virtue of > > having > > > accumulated the perfections over incalculable lifetimes. He taught > > us about > > > this and told us of his aspiration to do so 20 + Buddha sasanas ago. > > So you > > > wouldn't be denying the role of accumulations here, would you? > > > > Herman: > > > > > The Buddha rejects that his "aspirations" ie kamma were determined by his > > prior accumulations. > > > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > aspiration. > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. Cheers Herman #111665 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. > > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned > > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > > aspiration. > > > > > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you believe that kamma is uncaused. Metta, Sukinder #111666 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 8 November 2010 01:47, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Herman: > > > Despite what has been said, you continue to look for ways of somehow > turning > > kamma into vipaka. That, in itself, is kamma, not vipaka. > > > > Suk: Yes, every action through body, speech and mind is kamma. > Perhaps the teaching on the Three Rounds of kilesa vatta, kamma vatta > and vipaka vatta will help put things in perspective? > The experience through the five senses is vipaka and this is followed by > kamma. This kamma however is conditioned by the accumulations which > consists of both kusala and akusala tendencies. > If you are unaware of what conditioned / determined an action, is it kusala or akusala to nevertheless insist that it was conditioned / determined? > So we have for example, > seeing experiencing a pleasant object, and the kilesas conditioning > attachment to arise immediately. > > If I say that someone is a kind person, this is pointing to the > accumulations as manifested in kamma observed. It is not saying that he > does not have akusala tendencies, neither does it say that he was > somehow destined to be a kind person. In the case of distinguishing > between someone with accumulations to become a monk and the layperson, > this again is pointing to the accumulations as manifested in the kamma > that is conditioned to arise. > Why insist that an act is due to accumulations? > Of course you could argue why I need to > refer to accumulations at all, > Exactly. > and why not go by the kamma which is > conditioned to arise from moment to moment. > No, you need to establish that conditioning of an act occurs, and what that entails, rather than just asserting it repeatedly. > But I think this would be a > different matter. From my side the impression is that your emphasizing > kamma goes at the expense of understanding the role of accumulations. > > If you do not understand that this present moment is constituted by the doing of something very specific and known, but instead "understand" that whatever you are doing at any time has very definite, but unknown conditions, you understand nothing. > But of course you may be right and I do feel quite muddle headed, but > you'll have to explain what in all this is a case of turning kamma into > vipaka? > > Well, what is the known reality of the present moment, Sukin, is it known kamma, or unknown accumulations and unknown conditions? Cheers Herman #111667 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 8 November 2010 23:01, sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. > > > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned > > > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > > > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > > > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > > > aspiration. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. > > And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you believe > that kamma is uncaused. > > No, not at all. I act according to what I value. But what could possibly cause me to value something? Cheers Herman #111668 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 8:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/7/2010 5:57:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, KenH, all, >There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) > that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of >their interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a >wall" and to many other events. (Actually, it is far more >complicated than that, but this will suffice for this discussion.) >The things is, however, that there is no individual entity (i.e., >something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) > that is "the wall." But there is "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena". Right? ----------------------------------------------------- Those phenomena are "there" as much as is anything else is, yes. Our naming the bunch of them, however, as if, together, they constituted a single, well-delineated entity is a matter of convention however, and if taken as more than a well-grounded convention is a reification error, IMO. ----------------------------------------------------- I wasn't saying about indivisible whole. Of course the whole can be divided into its part, if not physically, then theoretically - that is why it is a "whole". The fact that it can be divided, does show that it, as "a bunch of interrelated material phenomena" does exist to be divided in the first place. -------------------------------------------------------- But "the whole" is not a fixed, well-delineated entity. It is a concept, albeit properly based upon observable relationships, but, when looked at carefully, seen to be really quite fuzzy. All "separating off" (into sharply identifiable "entities") at the macroscopic level and, despite what many on DSG think to the contrary, also at the microscopic level, is a matter of convention. Reality, as it actually is, is a complex, seamless unity-in-diversity, it seems to me. The diversity (or, better said, "variability") exists, at all levels, but so does the unity, the two appearing in inseparable, dialectical combination, with reality neither a dead, homogenous unity, nor a fragmented cloud of dust particles. ---------------------------------------------------------- > We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called > "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables >those phenomena to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable >way. Our error is to attribute separate, self-existent reality to >"the wall." Not necessarily. Even a non-Buddhist can know that a tree or wall is made of many parts. It doesn't take Dhamma to come up with the idea that "wholes do not exist". ------------------------------------------------------------- I am not asserting ultimate nonexistence merely on the basis of consisting of parts. It goes well beyond that. ----------------------------------------------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism ------------------------------------------------------------ Years ago, I wrote a paper giving a second-order axiomatization of mereology, it happens. (I have no idea of where it is. I think it MAY have been published in the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, but I can't find it. That's where all of my logic papers got published. Perhaps that paper was unpublished) It was a LONG time ago! ---------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111669 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/7/2010 7:03:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, On 7 November 2010 12:10, wrote: > > The only reason I am making the point is that people should not > expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily life. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > I'm unclear on this point. "Foundation" in what sense? One could > awaken in the midst of ordinary circumstances given appropriate prior > training > and current, triggering conditions, namely an ideal mind set plus, say, a > sudden sound or a "turning word" (to use a Zen term). > =================================== > > Yes, no doubt about that. What I doubt is that daily life would be a causal factor for such an event. And to the extent that by daily life one means being immersed in the activities of daily life, daily life would certainly prevent any such event occurring, IMO. ------------------------------------------------------ We seem to differ on this point. I believe that mindfulness at ordinary times can indeed constitute an important part of mental cultivation. Of course, lack of mindfulness has the opposite effect. ------------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111670 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han, Op 8-nov-2010, om 12:34 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Thank you very much once again for your kind explanation. ------- N: I can see that it is good for you to study texts again, after your operation. But I hope that you feel better now, Nina. #111671 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 3:05 pm Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, This is a longer conversation Khun Bong had with Acharn a few months before her death. On that occasion Acharn visited her together with Khun Duangduen. Acharn spoke about anattaa. Kh Sujin: These realities are anattaa. Nobody could be their owner. There is no owner of them, they arise because of conditions. Kh Bong: We have wrong understanding and we believe that what arises is me of mine. It is good if Acharn would speak about the perversities, vipallaasas. Kh Sujin: The vipallaasas are akusala. Why? Because one erroneously takes things for permanent, for beautiful, for happiness, for self. Khun Bong: I take what is not beautiful for beautiful. This makes me wary. I find all the things in my life that I buy beautiful: a watch, shoes, many dresses. This is dukkha. Each time when I do not know what to wear it is terrible. Khun Sujin: That must be worrysome. (laughter) Khun Bong then explains that she is worried which colour dress to wear and changes dresses when she is not satisfied. Khun Sujin: This is the same for everybody in a higher or lesser degree. Khun Bong: For me this is true in a high degree. Khun Sujin: We are bound to cling to what appears through the eyes. Kh Bong: We should understand that it is only that which appears so that it is seen through the eyes and after that there is only a reality that thinks about it. Kh Sujin: We think very foolishly about what appears very shortly and then falls away. It is impermanent and when it has fallen away it does not return. We remember the story of it so that the citta is engrossed in it and thinks about what has fallen away already. It is already finished, but we do not forget stories and different events. If there is no pa~n~naa we do not know the truth that life arises, proceeds, changes each moment from birth to death, each lifespan. Khun Bong: Acharn says that we are born into this life and know this life, and then it is finished. Everything else is not important. Pa~n~naa knows the truth of life. I speak now about something personal. At first I heard from a doctor that I must surely die soon, but now it appears at this moment that I do not die yet. ..It is all right when dying-consciousness arises. It is sure to come, but it is not sure when. Nobody knows. It is just natural, like seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting. It is just natural, normal, and thus I will surely die. Kh Sujin: It is the same for everybody, every day. Nobody knows what will happen at such or such a day. ********* (to be continued) Nina. #111672 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 8-nov-2010, om 0:07 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Yes, I know that sanna cetasika does that. But if it is momentary, > the difficulty is in explaining how memory is retained from moment > to moment. Why do we forget and then some time later remember > things that have happened long ago? ------ N: Even when we forget something there is citta accompanied by sa~n~naa which marks and remembers the object at that moment. It goes on and on from moment to moment. Because of contiguity condition there is a connection in our life from moment to moment. Sa~n~naa experiences the same object as citta at a given moment. Sa~n~naa is not quite the same thing as what we mean by memory in conventional sense. That makes it difficult to explain its operation. We think of situations, instead of trying to understand the operation of citta and cetasikas. Wanting to remember and failing, all this is the world in conventional sense and it will not help the understanding of realities. We can say this in conventional language: Why do we forget and then some time later remember things that have happened long ago? It depends on what object citta experiences at a certain moment. This is conditioned by several factors we cannot find out. As I wrote in another post: when we understand a Dhamma point we do not so easily forget. If we have not quite understood it, we cannot remember it. What we attach importance to we are likely to remember. Or what impressed us very much we remember, this is due to accumulated lobha. -------- > A:Was that memory being passed with EVERY citta until it surfaced > and gave its effects? Did I understand this correctly? ------- N: I would not put it that way, it is far more complex. Several unknown factors can condition the fact why we remember something. ------ Nina. #111673 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your reply. with Best wishes, Alex #111674 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 7:55 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: I like putting all those together, but I still think the specific practice of sitting has a particular effect. It's still just namas and rupas but the psychophysical setting seems to generate certain things... > ... > S: The question is whether those "certain things" have anything to do with the path! Obviously I do. All sorts of specific things cause various conditions and results. No reason why a psychophysical activity should not do so as well. Meditation as a chosen method for developing sati and samatha is given by Buddha - whether instruction or description he did not warn against it in any way, shape or form, and seemed to be in favor of it in all his talks. Even looking at "psychophysical activities" such as meditation, yoga, etc., as nothing but namas and rupas, there is no reason to suppose that sitting with a relaxed focus is not a situation of namas and rupas that has a particular kind of result, as everything does. My feeling is that certain definite things are generated when doing this sort of practice. Just as it makes a difference whether you are generating metta or harboring hate and ill will, it also makes a difference whether you are shooting a gun, or sitting and practicing mindfulness. Each series of namas and rupas that form an activity have their own specific life; they generate certain kinds of moments - not the same for everyone, but some of what they generate is psychophysical and effects both namas and rupas, and they involve certain kinds of namas and rupas and that is not arbitrary. While those moments are unpredictable, they are not unrelated to what is being done. I just think the idea that the psychophysical world and specific activities being rejected out of hand because they are "concepts of the namas and rupas taking place" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We can see that they are namas and rupas and still experience the effects of our chosen activities. After all, we wouldn't choose them if conditions and accumulations did not dictate them. I think we should decide if they are kusala or akusala by how they occur and what kinds of cittas arise, not by category and say "Category A must involve self-view" and so it is ruled out. And I think Buddha and his "trainees" were all doing sitting meditation for a reason - a good reason in my view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111675 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 8:43 pm Subject: Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina] I can see that it is good for you to study texts again, after your operation. But I hope that you feel better now, [Han] I am very much better now. But I cannot sit for long time. I also have to write at the other two discussion fora. I pray for the health of both of you. I hope Lodewijk is doing well. Respectfully, Han #111676 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Jon, On 7 November 2010 22:21, jonoabb wrote: > > > > Meditation is something that occurs / is done when it is realised that > the > > alternatives are not satisfactory. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for coming in here. There is of course no right or wrong answer; > each person uses the term in his or her own way (it's not a translation of a > term used in the Pali texts). > > Just to clarify, though, are you saying that meditation for you is an > actual moment of realisation (or whatever you like to call it), or that it's > something done in order to induce such a moment to occur (or both/neither)? > > Thanks for the question. I do not meditate in pursuit of insight. Meditation is, for me, a time of stopping all intention. In daily life that is generally not possible for any length of time, and I do look forward with relish towards those times of the day where I can safely stop intending. It's sort of my coping mechanism with having to live daily life in some way or another, and finding it all quite absurd. Cheers Herman #111677 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, On 7 November 2010 22:27, jonoabb wrote: > > J: The sound referred to in the texts is the audible data that is the > object of hearing consciousness, that is to say, before there is any > 'processing' leading to the object being recognised as being of a certain > pitch, volume or timbre, and as the sound of a voice or telephone or > whatever. > > As such, its only characteristic (apart from the 3 general characteristics > of anicca, dukkha, anattaa) is that of being the object of hearing > consciousness. > > Thanks for the heads-up. I accept that we cannot say anything about heard sound, only about listened-to sound. > > =============== > > > > Now it is no doubt the case that to our way of seeing things, the world > is > > > a world of 'thises' and 'thats' (people and things), and so the reality > of > > > the present moment as seen by us is necessarily a slice of that same > > > perception. But to my understanding the Buddha is saying that the > reality is > > > in fact something else altogether. > > > > > > > > All I can say is that if the Buddha conveyed that meaning, that means > > someone must have been so deluded as to have heard him say it. > > =============== > > J: To my (no doubt deluded ;-)) reading, the Buddha's description of the > world as it truly is is different from the world as we take it to be. And > this means I think that only by first gaining an intellectual understanding > of what the Buddha said about the way things truly are can there be the > development of the path at an experiential level. > > What I meant was that all we know of the Buddha is from listening to the Buddha. We know nothing from the Buddha from hearing him. If listening is a perversion of the way things really are ie hearing, then I'm afraid that in daily life we're stuck with perversion :-) Cheers Herman #111678 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:02 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111061) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > I don't know, Jon, I am not a scholar of sutta or Abhidhamma, so maybe my understanding is way off; or maybe I just have a different way of looking at Dhamma than you do, but I don't see the path in terms of all this pre-ordained kusala and akusala, and this whole idea that you can't do things with kusala because you're most likely in akusala most of the time, and so you have to do nothing until you develop kusala, but until you develop enough kusala you won't know if what you're doing is kusala or not, so you'd better not do anything - to be an extremely circular argument that seems a giant justification for not doing things that you already think should not be done for reasons of dogma. > > =============== > > J: The way you've put it certainly makes it sound circular ;-)). Fortunately, it's not as convoluted as you make it out to be. > > Simply stated, kusala arises at times and in a form that is not of anyone's choosing. What does kusala mean in terms of arising? Does that translate as "wholesomeness," "wholesome cittas" or exactly what? We use these Pali terms as if they are objects of some kind - "would you like some cream with your kusala?" "I heard a large pile of akusala blew into your house and you had to have it cleaned out." If I go back to what I *think* these words mean, they have to do with the quality of specific internal states, reactions and activities, and whether they are "good" or "bad" to put it simply, whether they represent the kind of understanding and purity which is conducive to the path, or whether they take one in the opposite direction, towards attachment, delusion and sensual cravings. If you apply this understanding to arising conditions, accumulations, kammas, and namas, you can say that at a particular moment you are either experiencing a wholesome experience or an unwholesome one, but I think that kusala and akusala would have to apply to something, wouldn't it? They aren't qualities in their own right that arise without namas or rupas are they? My further understanding, which you can verify or disagree with, is that kusala would not apply one way or another to a rupa, since it doesn't experience anything, but only to cittas and cetasikas, and other namas. I would suspect that phassa is neither kusala or akusala, and I'm not sure about vedana either - are pleasant and unpleasant vedana considered akusala, since they may have attachment and aversion involved? In any case, what exactly does it mean to have "kusala" and "akusala" arise in their own right, and what sorts of namas [and perhaps rupas...?] do they apply to? > This doesn't mean we should therefore 'do nothing' in order to avoid having more akusala; it means only that kusala cannot be made to arise by undertaking a 'practice'. Well who says that one is "making" anything arise by undertaking a practice? We all understand that engagement with Dhamma through sutta, sangha, wise consideration, etc., are not controllable ways of generating kusala, but that they will in fact over time gradually sow the seeds of panna and I guess positive vipaka...? So that in the future at some uncontrolled time more understanding will arise, and slowly pariyatti, sati and panna will continue to develop and accumulate. It is just the same with meditation, undertaken correctly. Again, it is part of the Buddha's program, which he talked about in great detail. It is an activity that does create conditions for arising of sati, samatha, and leads to vipassana. No one is controlling how and when these things happen, any more than one does in studying and considering dhamma. If studying Dhamma leads to development of Right View, then meditation leads to the development of sati, samatha, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness. I have tried repeatedly to find some principled reason why reading a sutta with an understanding that it is the Buddha's way of developing pariyatti and panna, and undertaking meditation with the understanding that it is Buddha's way of developing sati and samatha, is different in any way whatsoever. Despite the protestations that the former is kusala and the latter is based on self-view and is more "formal" with more result orientation, in fact they are exactly the same - doing what is seen as a kusala engagement with Dhamma in order to follow the Buddha's program for awakening. Again, I see the negative view of meditation in that sense as pure prejudice without a drop of justifiable logic. Buddha instructed us to study Dhamma; he also instructed us to engage in meditation. He talked about Right View and he talked about Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. The *development,* bhavana, of mindfulness and samatha leading to these path factors is the direct result of meditation. Although I am no scholar, it is clear in the commentaries I have seen that the dry insight path is the more unusual and more difficult path and not the only path to take by any stretch. The more common path is the path of meditation developing samatha to the level of jhana and then developing the later insight stages with relation to jhana. Both the Buddha's own teachings and the Visudhimagga make this clear. It is ironic that the Buddha is even said to have formulated the Abhidhamma while in meditation shortly after his enlightenment, but we're supposed to consider it a "formal" "akusala" involvement. > example, that when the Buddha spoke of 'guarding the sense-doors' he was referring to a moment of actual satipatthana rather than to a practice designed to somehow influence or change the present mindstates. Well I know that those who think that the teachings only apply to one moment at a time cannot fathom the idea that we might have these various practices that the Buddha gave so that we might avoid akusala influences and develop kusala over time. Instead we should do nothing but focus on developing pariyatti of technical details of dhammas while ignoring the kusala and akusala that is within our own experience all the time. > > =============== > > When I say "dogma," I mean that it is always understood that meditation is "bad," and that no one anyone knows is advanced enough to have enough kusala to do it, which translates into "no one should do it because when you think it's kusala it's really akusala." So meditation is out. > > > > On the other hand, the "dogma" dictates that Dhamma study is always good. You acknowledge in passing that the intention for Dhamma study could also be akusala, but this gets dismissed and it turns out that everyone should be encouraged to study and understand Dhamma, because *that* is the path. > > =============== > > J: I'm afraid you've mis-read me. Please see my message of a short time ago to Herman where I explained that conventional activities are neither support nor hindrance for the development of that path. Well that is a bit difficult to accept since it is repeated over and over again that one can't get anything out of meditation but "self-view" and "greater akusala" and that one should though study Dhamma and that this will lead to Right View, pariyatti and increased panna over time. So it doesn't seem that the idea you say above that "conventional activities are neight support nor hindrance" is the actual program that is followed. Studying sutta and discussing it are conventional activities, just as much as meditation is. Why not say that none of it is useful and that only momentary discernment of dhammas in this moment is useful at all? That would be consistent, but it's not the program. Somehow all that Buddha said about wise consideration and hearing of Dhamma is accepted with great enthusiasm, and all that he said about meditation is looked at as "description of what the monks happened to be doing," and having no relation to the path, developing self-view, and as I have heard many times, "most likely to be akusala most of the time since it comes from Wrong View." So these statements are not consistent at all with what you say above. All conventional activities are *not* considered equal. There is a great prejudice in favor of Dhamma study, whether formal or informal. > In terms of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', all we need to know is that kusala is to be developed while akusala is not. This can never be achieved by characterising conventional actions as 'good' or 'bad'. Then why oh why is it constantly done by the Dhamma students here, with nary a correction or a cross comment in response? Why are supposedly conventional activities such as meditation considered to be "bad" and prone to self-view and akusala. Akusala is the same thing as saying "bad," it is unwholesome and against the direction of the path, leading to further delusion. So indeed, meditation is constantly said to be "bad" here, and some even exclaim with relief that they stopped meditating and got on the Right path of Dhamma study only, pariyatti only, and got rid of the "bad" conventional activities that they had confused with the path. > > =============== > Well, Buddha did give meditation instruction, but only to the most *advanced* disciples who were already doing it because of past accumulations, so that's okay. > > =============== > > J: Not quite. I don't see it as a case of meditation (in the sense of formal practice) being OK for some but not for others. Well it was clearly "okay" for those whom he instructed to use anapanasati to develop the "whole of the path" including the enlightenment factors. So was it then okay for everyone, or not? > > =============== > > It all comes back to supporting the predominant dogma - Dhamma study: good! Meditation: bad! > > =============== > > J: Your take on what's been said ;-)). Actually, what we talk about here is right view and wrong view, rather than doing this or doing that. It's usually others who bring the discussion around to the subject of meditation as a form of 'practice'. What happens when one happens to mention meditation as part of the path is that there is an onslaught of enthusiastic group members declaring that such an involvement is akusala. I don't know who brings it up, but let's just say it's not exactly "safe" to mention it in passing. If some of us happen to have meditation as part of our practice and understanding of Dhamma, we're not going to get an easy ride, are we? > > =============== > That is not the path that was outlined by the Buddha - Buddha spoke of both; understanding Dhamma and practicing meditation; > > =============== > > J: Still waiting for your definition of 'meditation' as used here, i.e., in the context of 'practicing meditation' as opposed to 'understanding Dhamma'. Have addressed this recently. Hope it is at least clear. My view of meditation is extremely similar to the detailed description Buddha gave in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas. The basic meditation is breathing meditation, and mindfulness is also developed in relation to vedana, mental states, etc. Is that still confusing in some way? > > =============== > > In addition, the idea that the entire path is to be followed according to a kusala/akusala on/off switch is also, in my view, contrary to the path. Buddha defined what was wholesome and unwholesome in very ordinary terms. Anyone knows what is wholesome and unwholesome. Playing dice - bad! Sympathetic joy - good! It's not rocket science. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the terms kusala and akusala refer the ethical quality of mental states, not of conventional deeds or activities. Do you see it differently? Yes, I see both conventional and non-conventional kusala and akusala to be of import. The path is developed conventionally until such time as unconventional discernment arises and becomes relevant. Building up conventional sati in relation to that which is experienced and conventional understanding, etc., accumulates the concentration, mindfulness and samatha to go further. That's my view. And that's the way the Buddha taught in sutta. > > =============== > But you have turned kusala and akusala, using the Pali terms almost exclusively, into mystical cetasikas, which, like anatta as a positive characteristic, then take on a special life of their own, dissociated from actual wholesome and unwholesome activities. Not only mystical objects, but ones we have no access to, sort of like dhammas, part of a fleeting reality that only an arahant can really sense or understand. > > =============== > > J: Never. There are wholesome and unwholesome mental states arising for everyone in ordinary daily life, regardless of the level of developed understanding. The question is, are they known as such, or are the akusala taken to be kusala (and perhaps vice versa also)? Well that is something we all continue to return to and develop until we become more clear. That's the way it goes, isn't it? > > =============== > > I think it's valuable to see the anicca in our body as it gets older and work on detachment from that, instead of dismissing that as a "concept" and going back to fantasizing about invisible dhammas. > > =============== > > J: This is the conventional idea of 'impermanence'. But the impermanence spoken of by the Buddha, as one of the 3 characteristics, appears almost invariably in the suttas in the context of dhammas (not of conventional objects). That is not so, Jon. Buddha constantly talks about the conventional factors of life and how they are anatta and anicca. He does so in countless suttas, so it is not fair to say he always does so in some pure form of understanding of dhammas. He finds it valuable to tell people to detach from conventional objects, so I think it is valuable too. > > =============== > I think there is some value to seeing that our vision of things is a shadow of realities, but a main focus of the path is to see, discern, understand what we are really experiencing, let go, detach, work on developing real kusala ways of relating and living in the actual *now* of experience, > > =============== > > J: The highest level of the development of kusala in the actual *now* is the understanding of dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anattaa. It would, however, be a mistake to think that this is something that could be 'worked on'. I think it is also a mistake to refrain from looking at the current perceptions and understandings that we have, and to see them as anicca and anatta and dukkha, and to detach from them to the extent possible so that the path develops on whatever level we may be on. Samsara waits for no one, so we may as well work with what we experience at the present time. > > =============== > To understand those ultimate units, and their conditions is valuable, but that should be backed up by understanding of our relationship to concepts. When we cling to a person or thing, or cling to our sense of self, that is when we really have a chance to see anicca and anatta and dukkha *now,* not in a future lifetime when we will see the anatta-ness of fleeting dhammas, but the stuck heavy shadow-dhammas we are fixated on *now.* > > =============== > > J: I would say that when there is clinging to a person or thing, the actuality of that moment as explained in the teachings is the clinging, an unwholesome mental factor. It is the awareness of such clinging and other dhammas that is the development of the path taught by the Buddha. I will agree with you there. One can look at the clinging, etc., as well as that which we are clinging to, which I would guess would usually be in the form of a nimitta, since we rarely see the actual dhammas in real time. So we can look at that nimitta and see if it is worth clinging to in relation to the Buddha's check list. He went through this list over and over, convincing people of the three characteristics and the value of detaching. I don't see any reason not to do the same. When I see a real life dhamma in the moment, I will hopefully detach from that too! :-) > The Buddha did not teach about 'understanding of our relationship to concepts'. He taught about understanding dhammas as they truly are. Well sutta is full of references to conventional objects. You can second-guess the Buddha and decide he was really talking about something else. I'd rather not second-guess the Buddha. I understand that it is useful to detach from conventional objects as long as that is what we are seeing and clinging to. It is also useful to look into them with mindfulness and develop pariyatti and panna to see what they really are, then the detachment may be more complete, but there is no reason to wait. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111679 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:15 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Jon > J: Thanks. Yes, the Vism passage is pretty clear if read carefully and in full. Unfortunately, most people seem to prefer a rather selective reading ;-)) I'd just like to catch you on this point. You are not exempt from the selective use of Vism, you guys do it too. This occurred to me today when I came across a commentarial teaching on radiating metta, which you reject but which comes from Vism. There are countless other points. I think we all pick and chose from Vism to suit our arguments. . Metta, Phil #111680 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Phil and Sarah, On 8 November 2010 20:21, philip wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > It might sound like just be a technical point, but I wonder whether the > > development of sila is dependent on daily life. Would I be too nitpicky > if I > > suggested that sila is an attitude, or a bunch of attitudes, and that the > > development of sila is thus a modification of attitudes? > > I see your point, and I think you could be closer to a stricter > understanding in what you say, that it is not in the objects we encounter in > daily life that the challenges to sila lie, but in the accumulated attitudes > we have and the conditioned responses that result from them. So really you > are closer to something like Sarah and others would say, undersanding is the > most important thing. > > Yes, I think understanding is important. Where Sarah and I differ is that I don't think accumulations can be understood, or are a valid explanation for behaviour. > But those attitudes/accumulated defilments need to be weakened, and the > only way they can be weakened is in their response to objects, isn't it? > We do what we do because we value the expected outcomes more than other possible outcomes. If attitudes are not being altered or weakened, then it is only because our values are not changing. I guess what you're saying is right, it is in response to the object that we can reevaluate. When mindful, we can cease doing whatever we are doing in relation to any object, because no object is making us do anything, and then consider whether our actions are really giving us the benefits we think they are, and whether they are not causing other undesirable outcomes. > And it's in daily life that multifarious objects are encountered, isn't it? > You are right. > I guess I would feel different if I had an intensive meditation practice, > but for me and my wee bit of pleasant meditation, the relatively intense > practice is in daily life, out and about in Tokyo... > > So yes, a modification of attitudes/defilements through repetitive exposure > to objects, there is a sutta that stresses this point, it is when objects > are encountered again and again and the defiled response doesn't occur that > the sense doors are being guarded, and in one sutta sila is conditional on > guarding the sense doors, which makes sense I think... > Guarding the sense doors in relation to specific objects will happen if the downside of not doing it will be seen to outweigh the supposed pay-off. In being mindful of whatever one is doing presently, I would see thoughts of "my accumulations" as being diversions and impediments. > > No sharp thinking there, I'm a bit brain dead after a long day at work... > > I thought you did very well, actually .... :-) Cheers Herman #111681 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Howard, On 9 November 2010 00:12, wrote: > > > > I'm unclear on this point. "Foundation" in what sense? One could > > awaken in the midst of ordinary circumstances given appropriate prior > > training > > and current, triggering conditions, namely an ideal mind set plus, say, a > > sudden sound or a "turning word" (to use a Zen term). > > =================================== > > > > > Yes, no doubt about that. > > What I doubt is that daily life would be a causal factor for such an event. > And to the extent that by daily life one means being immersed in the > activities of daily life, daily life would certainly prevent any such event > occurring, IMO. > ------------------------------------------------------ > We seem to differ on this point. I believe that mindfulness at > ordinary times can indeed constitute an important part of mental > cultivation. Of > course, lack of mindfulness has the opposite effect. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Our difference may arise from my stated belief that being immersed in daily life precludes mindfulness. But,on reflection, that belief of mine is not warranted, because despite being immersed, mindfulness sometimes just spontaneously interrupts our being lost in daily life. So, I guess I'll change my belief then :-) I'll rephrase it to prolonged mindfulness being precluded by daily life. However, I'd still like to maintain that lack of mindfulness, being immersed in daily life, is a not causal factor in becoming mindful. Cheers Herman #111682 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? egberdina Hi Howard, On 7 November 2010 23:48, wrote: > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) > that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of their > interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a wall" and to many > other > events. (Actually, it is far more complicated than that, but this will > suffice for this discussion.) The things is, however, that there is no > individual > entity (i.e., something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) > that is "the wall." We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called > "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables those > phenomena > to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable way. Our error is to > attribute separate, self-existent reality to "the wall." (What I say here > about the merely conventional existence of walls as things, I also say > about > the so called dhamma "realities" that many folks here seem to almost > worship, > but I lose *everybody* at this point! ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Small correction here, Howard. You don't lose me at that point :-) > Cheers Herman #111683 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/8/2010 6:41:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: However, I'd still like to maintain that lack of mindfulness, being immersed in daily life, is a not causal factor in becoming mindful. ================================== Intention to be mindful, and the increasingly frequent effort at staying present not only while meditating, but also during "everyday life can, in my understanding and experience, lead to cultivation of mindfulness occurring with increasing frequency, strength and reliability. I consider, as you know, "formal meditation" to be central to the Buddha's way and of critical importance to cultivation, but I also deem what happens all the rest of the time to also be of major importance. With metta, Howard "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." — _SN 45.8_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html) #111684 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? egberdina Hi Alex, On 8 November 2010 10:07, truth_aerator wrote: > > -------- > > N: Sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance, accompanies each citta, as >you > know. It marks and recognises the object experienced at that >moment. > > Yes, I know that sanna cetasika does that. But if it is momentary, the > difficulty is in explaining how memory is retained from moment to moment. > Why do we forget and then some time later remember things that have happened > long ago? Was that memory being passed with EVERY citta until it surfaced > and gave its effects? Did I understand this correctly? > > I think your questions are very useful. I work with brain-injured people. It is clear that massive impact to the skull, as in motor vehicle accidents, assault, sports injuries etc severely impairs memory. Lack of oxygen to the brain, as in failed suicide attempts, near drowning, stroke, heart attack etc also cause dramatic loss of memory. Most significantly, fatally injured people don't remember anything at all :-) It becomes a problem when descriptive words like citta and sanna are also used as explanations. Citta and sanna do not explain anything observable. Cheers Herman #111685 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Hi Herman, all you've got some good observations. However as I've learned from some people, and some of my reasoning, that it is not impossible to fit what happens into one's theory. We could say that brain-injury is a certain happening of rupas with corresponding citta/cetasikas arising that do not remember some things. So no problem. It is like an idealist saying that "all this is just a mental event happening" or a materialist saying the same. With metta, Alex #111686 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, >> Suk: Yes, every action through body, speech and mind is kamma. >> Perhaps the teaching on the Three Rounds of kilesa vatta, kamma vatta >> and vipaka vatta will help put things in perspective? >> The experience through the five senses is vipaka and this is followed by >> kamma. This kamma however is conditioned by the accumulations which >> consists of both kusala and akusala tendencies. >> > Herman: > > If you are unaware of what conditioned / determined an action, is it kusala > or akusala to nevertheless insist that it was conditioned / determined? S: Hearing sounds, thinking, recognizing a certain tune that one particularly likes and enjoying the music, is this so hard to understand? ======== >> So we have for example, seeing experiencing a pleasant object, >> and the kilesas conditioning attachment to arise immediately. >> >> If I say that someone is a kind person, this is pointing to the >> accumulations as manifested in kamma observed. It is not saying that he >> does not have akusala tendencies, neither does it say that he was >> somehow destined to be a kind person. In the case of distinguishing >> between someone with accumulations to become a monk and the layperson, >> this again is pointing to the accumulations as manifested in the kamma >> that is conditioned to arise. >> > Herman: > Why insist that an act is due to accumulations? S: In the example of hearing sound and thinking music, there is recognition or not and there is enjoyment or not. Would it not be part of the development of understanding to know why there is this difference? ======== >> and why not go by the kamma which is >> conditioned to arise from moment to moment. >> Herman: > No, you need to establish that conditioning of an act occurs, and what that > entails, rather than just asserting it repeatedly. S: It is all about the development of understanding, and this can't get "established" simply by 'thinking', no matter how hard or how often repeated. Trying to draw a line saying that this is all I need to know and this I don't, is reflection of misunderstanding about how the development takes place. In this regard, asserting repeatedly about such things, can be understood as conditioned each time, but in and of itself, such thinking is not an obstacle to the Path, unlike when we think to 'control' all this and limit the field of study. ========= >> But I think this would be a >> different matter. From my side the impression is that your emphasizing >> kamma goes at the expense of understanding the role of accumulations. >> >> Herman: > If you do not understand that this present moment is constituted by the > doing of something very specific and known, but instead "understand" that > whatever you are doing at any time has very definite, but unknown > conditions, you understand nothing. S: At the moment of stealing what is it that is to be known, the whole act / concept of 'stealing'? So many realities arise and fall away during the course of such actions, is one more worthy than another as object of understanding? The fact that all these realities *are conditioned*, why would you think this can't be understood at some level? ======== >> But of course you may be right and I do feel quite muddle headed, but >> you'll have to explain what in all this is a case of turning kamma into >> vipaka? >> >> Herman: > Well, what is the known reality of the present moment, Sukin, is it known > kamma, or unknown accumulations and unknown conditions? S: Leaving aside what is known and how, my question to you here is: Does hearing of the Dhamma about the Dependent Origination and Conditionality make no difference as to how one thinks about one's experiences / actions? Metta, Sukinder #111687 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi herman, >>>> Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. >>>> His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned >>>> by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, >>>> accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the >>>> time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the >>>> aspiration. >>>> >>>> >>> Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. >> And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you believe >> that kamma is uncaused. >> >> > Herman: No, not at all. I act according to what I value. But what could possibly > cause me to value something? S: I'd suggest that your reference to "value" was necessitated exactly due to this inescapable fact of accumulations. Metta, Sukinder #111688 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 4:41 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > Beginning to be like one of your epic series....don't worry, this is the last for now! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Can we start by defining satipatthana? I think my definition is more mundane than yours. :-) > > > > I would say the experiential practice is the development of sati and samatha through anapanasati and satipatthana leading to insight, panna and awakening. That would include discerning nama and rupa with increasing refinement. > .... > S: Actually, there are 3 meanings of satipatthana (you can find all the details in 'useful posts' under 'satipatthana: 3 meanings'. In brief, they are: > a) the various realities as objects of insight, i.e rupas of the body, vedana, cittas, all dhammas - the fourfold satipatthana > b) the path/way of developing understanding and awareness of these objects > c) the path as followed by ariyan disciples before. > .... > > > S: So can there be the development of satipatthana right now and if so, what do you understand it to be? What is the distinction between satipatthana and "experiential practice" which you refer to? > > > >R: There's no distinction, except that I think there is benefit from sitting meditation as a setting for satipatthana. Satipatthana would be both the method and result of "experiential practice." > .... > S: If we understand the practice to be the understanding of dhammas now, then ideas of posture or situation don't apply. Anytime. Except that posture and situation are made up of particular rupas and namas. Isn't it possible that one configuration is different from another? If not, how do you explain the beneficial effect of studying Dhamma, even though this is a conventional concept-based activity? Can't meditation factors generate an equivalent sort of effect on accumulations and conditions? ...satipatthana only refers to the direct knowing of namas and rupas, paramattha dhammas. Okay, so it is sati which has reached the level of direct discernment. Does that apply to anyone prior to stream-entry? ... > S: Only the sotapanna has no more wrong view. But whenever understanding arises and develops, it is bhavana. There are two kinds of bhavana - samatha and vipassana. So they would arise prior to being a sotapanna, but not with complete knowing and right view? ...even in the beginning, there must be right understanding, otherwise it's not bhavana, not practice, at such times. Obviously there are degrees of right understanding, otherwise the path would only be open to the sotapanna and above. > > > S: Yes. Here by meditation, I like to think of bhavana, mental development/meditation. > > > >R: I like putting all those together, but I still think the specific practice of sitting has a particular effect. It's still just namas and rupas but the psychophysical setting seems to generate certain things... > ... > S: The question is whether those "certain things" have anything to do with the path! If one experiences calm and peacefulness, some softening or putting aside of defilements, a greater sense of peace with some hints of contentment or bliss tending towards equilibrium and detachment, some greater discernment of nama and rupa, one would conclude that there is some kusala there and that these "certain things" are supporting the path, even if there is only a higher level of awareness towards conventional objects at first. Those sorts of things that are generated by meditation seem kusala to me. I can tell, because some other stuff always comes up eventually that really is difficult, painful, distracting, etc., and it is clearly akusala. So at least on a gross level, it's not impossible to tell the difference. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111689 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 5:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > You can continue to "instruct" me in the other thread. > > > > > > > > > > Many mixed motives for sure, but I don't recall this being one of them. > > > Frankly, I am skeptical about you ever coming to agree with me. And > > > although I like to share thinking that it could be useful to some > > > extent, my main motive here is to find out where exactly both of us > > > agree and where we disagree and the reason for this. > > > > I appreciate it. Sorry if that comment was too strong - I was teasing. > > > > I thought that you might have been, but being who I am I couldn't help > ending up taking it seriously. Sorry. ;-) Nothing wrong with being serious. It just represents your commitment to the path. I'll keep teasing though, when I have the chance, since it is my nature. ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111690 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:16 am Subject: The Entrance! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Last Relinquishment: When ignorance of the 4 Noble Truths finally fully evaporates, One no longer clings to any sense pleasure, any views, or any rules and rituals! One no longer clings to any idea of a self, I, Me, Ego, Soul or Identity at all... When one does not cling, one is not agitated! One remains imperturbable... When one is not agitated, one attains the state of Nibbāna right there! One then understands: Rebirth is ended, this Noble life has been lived, What had to be done is done, there is no more relapsing into any state of being... Ignorance Meltdown is the Entrance! Comment: Nibbāna is a phase transition of consciousness! <....> Source: Majjhima Nikāya I 68: The shorter speech on the Lion's Roar. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #111691 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 10:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept philofillet Hi Herman > > But those attitudes/accumulated defilments need to be weakened, and the > > only way they can be weakened is in their response to objects, isn't it? > > > > We do what we do because we value the expected outcomes more than other > possible outcomes. If attitudes are not being altered or weakened, then it > is only because our values are not changing. I guess what you're saying is > right, it is in response to the object that we can reevaluate. When mindful, > we can cease doing whatever we are doing in relation to any object, because > no object is making us do anything, and then consider whether our actions > are really giving us the benefits we think they are, and whether they are > not causing other undesirable outcomes. Ph: I don't know, Herman. It seems to me that what you're writing about here is a logical calculation of some sort, and I can see that sort of thing going on in some situations. For example, when I was faced with the opportunity to have sex with a married woman, all sorts of calculations of costs/benefits went on, there was time for that. But I am thinking more of very sudden responses when there is not time (it would seem to me) for the kind of value judgements you are talking about. > > Guarding the sense doors in relation to specific objects will happen if the > downside of not doing it will be seen to outweigh the supposed pay-off. Ph: Well, I suppose that the payoff/downside calculation could happen very quickly, and you might be right. But let me give you an example. I write a lot about lust, and I'm sure some people must wonder why a married man living in Tokyo is so obsessed about weakening the power of lust. Well, leave that aside for now, there is an interesting narrative, but never mind. I am interested in weakening the power of lust. One of its most harmful manifestations is the hungry glance at a woman, that is seen by some as a playful behaviour, and the woman likes it and so on, but I perceive abstaining from it to be a form of dana, giving the gift of freedom from fear. (This perception is probably heightened by living in Japan, where so many people are afraid of foreigners to begin with.) So I am walking through Tokyo and a woman wearing X (I know what X is but I don't need to tell you all) comes along. Now I have looked at women wearing X thousands of times I guess, in my life, and proliferated on it thousands of times, so I have marked the woman, if you will. (Actually sanna has) and have created a deluded perception of women wearing X as being beautiful. That is a distorted perception, a vipalassa. Now when i see a woman wearing X there is a kind of training, where a contrary perception of the correct understanding, that a woman wearing X is not beautiful is being put into play along with the unwholesome perception. This goes on again and again, and gradually the wholesome perception begins to take root. It is in daily life and only in daily life where this little competition of wholesome and unwholesome perceptions can take place, where the mind can be trained to process sensory objects in a more wholesome way, a way that leads to happiness instead of accumualting suffering (by marking the object in the way described above.) That is just one of many examples, but this sort of thing must go on in daily life, I think. I guess it is blasphemous to say, but I think monks have it easy in a way, I should be so lucky. Maybe I will be some day. (That's part of the narrative hinted at above...) Metta, Phil In > being mindful of whatever one is doing presently, I would see thoughts of > "my accumulations" as being diversions and impediments. #111692 From: "antony272b2" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 11:24 am Subject: Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, Bhikkhu Nyanamoli wrote: "When the seen, heard, sensed, and cognized (see Udana I, 10), are misperceived to //be// (this that I see, . . . that //I// think about, //is// that //man//, so-and-so, that //thing// of //mine//), to have temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh052-p.html Antony: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that there is no role for "bare" attention in the Buddha's teachings at all, as attention is conditioned by fabrications (sankharas) and consciousness. He focuses on appropriate attention (yonisomanasikara) instead. http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/DependentCo-arising.pdf Do you think there is a "raw world" without real past, present and future? Thanks / Antony. #111693 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 11:47 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, (Pt & all), We were really appreciative of your questions just in time for our discussion session yesterday afternoon. In fact your questions prompted a really interesting discussion on meditation and anapanasati for the entire time (almost 2 hours). I'll continue to add comments arising from one of Pt's messages after this one. I'll start with adding some of K.Sujin's brief comments on your qus which I happened to note: >1. Can it be kusala for the ordinary person with some knowledge of Dhamma to practice anapanasati? .... KS: Anapanasati must be kusala. Can we choose? .... >2. Can sitting meditation directed towards development of sati/awareness create conditions for greater understanding? .... KS: No. .... >3. Is it possible to practice sitting meditation without self-view being supported or magnified? .... KS: Same answer! ... >4. Are there some for whom it just naturally arise because of past accumulations to sit and practice anapanasati/satipatthana meditation for whom it would thus be kusala? .... KS: Anything can be done with understanding - anytime, any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. (If there is an idea of) special time, (there is the) idea of self. Striving - is it not lobha or ditthi or both? If one just follows one's own way without panna, there is no way to have anapanasati. It's not about "must", but about the Truth. The references to "having gone to the foot of the tree" etc, are describing that one who has already gone there. There must be the teaching of detachment. What about "sitting"? It doesn't matter at all what the posture is. Why sit? If one thinks it's a rule, no understanding. How come, as some suggest, that there is right understanding and awareness after sitting or whilst sitting, even if the initial motivation is wrong? This is reflecting, thinking only, but the general motivation of sitting to be aware or develop either samatha or insight is wrong, because there's no understanding, there is a wishing to obtain results. Of course, this doesn't mean that sitting cross-legged with an erect back and so on isn't a suitable way to sit! (We went on to discuss the various ways we found suitable for sitting whilst having our discussion! Some use a foot-stool, some a special cushion and so on!) Metta Sarah ========= #111694 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:00 pm Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, We need to clearly differentiate between breath as object of samatha and breath as object of vipassana. 1. Breath as object of samatha: First of all, we must stress that the cittas must be kusala and arise with understanding, if it is the development of samatha (calm). When breath is the object, it is a concept of breath only, a pannatti or nimitta, not the paramattha dhamma. There can be wise reflection, sati sampajanna, on how life at this moment depends on breath. This helps us to have less attachment to other things or possessions. As I've mentioned, I find it useful to reflect on how life and all we hold dear depends on this very in and out-breath. Without breath there'd be no life at all. The moments of calm have to be understood, otherwise it doesn't make sense. It is not a refined object available only to Buddhas and their disciples at all, but quite "coarse". Now, there may be wise reflection on how everything we find important just depends on this momentary breath. This can bring calm. It's a different kind of understanding from that which knows realities. It is not the breath which brings wise reflection, attachment or aversion, but the kind of reflection and understanding. If one has an idea that if breath is the object, it will bring kusala, it's not correct at all. Breath itself (or what is taken for breath) can appear in daily life, such as during our exercise, and be the object of attachment or detachment. When it appears (i.e. what is taken for breath) and there is understanding, that understanding knows how to develop samatha with this object, just as when there is wise reflection of death or metta which is apparent, samatha can develop. Before the Buddha's time even, anapanasati as object of samatha was developed up to the 5th (arupa) jhana without any understanding of dhammas as anatta. There was no knowledge of the reality of the very subtle rupa - the insight into this very particular dhamma is known only by certain ariyan disciples of the Buddha. However, there was the knowledghe of how to develop samatha with the concept, the nimitta of breath as it appears. It's pointless to aim to have samatha, but it can develop in daily life, such as when being kind or helpful or reflecting wisely on death or breath, for example. At such times, one isn't disturbed at all, there is calm. Self is there if one just wants to have more kusala, such as calm and there isn't any panna at such times. Indeed, if one selects breath as object, there is attachment for sure. If one sits or lies down, wishing to reflect on breath or attempting to understand it, the lobha at such times can never understand wholesome states. Sometimes there may be physical disturbances resulting too at such times, because nothing is known about detachment. Only panna knows what the right object is at the present moment. Of course, even these moments of attachment can be known for what they are. ***** 2. Breath as object of satipatthana This is the very subtle rupa, the special vayu dhatu (wind element) as conditioned by citta only, which appears at the nose-tip. There are many different groups of rupas, but other groups are conditioned by other causes (such as kamma or temperature). If we try to pinpoint such rupas and call them breath, there will be no understanding. Likewise, when we read texts such as the Visuddhimagga, it's just our own ideas about breath which we follow. The subtle rupas of breath only appear to a few mahapurisas (ariyan disciples) about to become arahats such as Buddha, Ananda and other key disciples, because almost all attachment has been eradicated, there is no attachment to results and panna is so great for these particular ariyans. As any nama or rupa can be the object of satipatthana and the development is one of understanding and detachment from whatever appears, this is all that matters. Any reality commonly taken for being breath can be the object of awareness in daily life if it appears, such as during one's exercise, such as yoga, running and panting or any other time. Heat, cold, hardness, softness, pressure (taken for breath ordinarily) may appear, just like any other tangible object. They all fall away instantly. When there is right understanding, it grows, otherwise, there's no way to become detached, if there's any selection of objects at all. We're not talking about the very subtle rupas only known by the mahapurisa here, but any rupas taken for breath. So, there can be awareness of breath now, or rather, those rupas commonly taken for breath. It just depends on conditions what appears and on the understanding at what level and whether there is any samatha or satipatthana development. It's a test of panna - to have such understanding or not. ***** The Buddha taught us to develop satipatthana and understand different dhammas appearing in daily life, without any selection, as anatta. At such moments, there is calm, there is samatha and the discourses always end with the teaching of the Eight-fold Path which leads to the eradication of all defilements. The Buddha knew all the different accumulations, but the most important thing is development of understanding of realities now. Why delay by trying to have calm or meditate on the breath first? Metta Sarah > > pt: 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, <..> >pt: Hm, ok, but then what exactly does the "contemplation" actually takes on for the subject? I'm guessing it's not about verbal thinking like "ok there's the breath, and my life depends on it, etc". I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of understanding there, in that paticular moment of samatha when breath becomes an object. So, I'm guessing it would be the understanding/recognising of breath as... Hm, well it can't be recognised as rupa since that wouldn't be samatha anymore, so I guess it would be more like understanding that breath is, well, ... I don't know. ============= #111695 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han, Op 8-nov-2010, om 21:43 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I pray for the health of both of you. I hope Lodewijk is doing well. ------ Thank you for your good wishes. Lodewijk is doing OK but has ups and downs. Admirable you do three forums. I go slowly with the anusayas. Now there is a simile about a painter, quite difficult for me. Nina. #111696 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) truth_aerator Hi Anthony, all, > Antony: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that there is no role for "bare" >attention in the Buddha's teachings at all, as attention is >conditioned by fabrications (sankharas) and consciousness. He >focuses >on appropriate attention (yonisomanasikara) instead. > http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/DependentCo-arising.pdf > >Do you think there is a "raw world" without real past, present and >future? I don't believe in absolutely "bare attention". The awareness of something already has some underlying things (underlying tendencies such as ignorance). I also doubt the possibility of 100% accurately knowing the world in ontological sense from the words and things we read in books. When it comes to theoretic explanations we need to remember that all these explanations use words. Words are just pointers to what they are supposed to point to. Word, and what it points to, are different. Ex: the words "sweet taste", and actual experience of sugar on the tongue are different. Logic is just a man-made tool to juggle and arrange sentences (which are made of words) and are called "propositions, arguments, inferences,etc" in something that they are supposed to mean. I don't mean that they have to be all false, but that logic, being made of words, is at least one step removed from reality that it may or may not accurately correspond too.. And what is logical justification of logic? You can't use X to justify X, and anything other than "logical justification" would probably be closer to illogical. So logic is an assumption that may or may not work in all cases. This means that we shouldn't rely too much on logical arguments and inferences, especially when they deal with unreachable things that either happened a long time ago, extreme distance away, or on minute scales. Words using "ultimate" terminology are still words. There can be as much concept of the real as concept of the unreal. Words (no matter how precise or ultimate) are not exactly the real thing they are supposed to point. The "ultimate" terminology can be more precise than "conventional" but it still uses words - mere pointers. Eating the food, and reading the menu are different. Reading the menu will not make your hunger go away. With metta, Alex #111697 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) sarahprocter... Dear All, A friend asked me off-list whether what I wrote was a quote or not. I'd like to stress that it was actually based on coments I scribbled down at the time over the couple of hours, re-arranged completely, with some of my own embellishments - really my own understanding based on our discussions, not a quote (and I haven't listened to the audio). It's helpful for me to reflect on and to try to summarise a topic like this. Jon, Rob K and Sukin were also present during the discussion, so I'd be glad if they'd let us know if they have any different understandings of any of the points mentioned in my couple of posts or further points/recollections to add. I started to also include the passage Rob brought up, conveniently found on his i-pad at the time, on anapanasati and posture and more of the discussion on that, but my post was already too long, so I decided to leave it for him or one of the others! Metta Sarah ======= #111698 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 8:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 9 November 2010 14:40, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi herman, > > >>>> Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about > 'conditioned'. > >>>> His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was > conditioned > >>>> by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > >>>> accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > >>>> time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > >>>> aspiration. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. > >> And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you > believe > >> that kamma is uncaused. > >> > >> > > Herman: No, not at all. I act according to what I value. But what could > possibly > > > cause me to value something? > > S: I'd suggest that your reference to "value" was necessitated exactly > due to this inescapable fact of accumulations. > It sounds like for you values and accumulations are identical. I am happy to continue the discussion on that basis. Do you believe that because I sometime in the past valued X, that is why I value it now? Cheers Herman #111699 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 9:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 9 November 2010 14:37, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > > Herman: > > > > > If you are unaware of what conditioned / determined an action, is it > kusala > > or akusala to nevertheless insist that it was conditioned / determined? > > S: Hearing sounds, thinking, recognizing a certain tune that one > particularly likes and enjoying the music, is this so hard to understand? > > You misunderstand. You start of with insisting that everything is conditioned. I am saying that if you don't know what those conditions are, you really don't understand anything, you just have an untested idea. Take hearing sound, for example. You don't know anything about sound, yet you insist that it is conditioned. There is no understanding in your insistences at all. On that basis I question the wholesomeness of repeating what you don't know > ======== > > >> So we have for example, seeing experiencing a pleasant object, > >> and the kilesas conditioning attachment to arise immediately. > >> > >> If I say that someone is a kind person, this is pointing to the > >> accumulations as manifested in kamma observed. It is not saying that he > >> does not have akusala tendencies, neither does it say that he was > >> somehow destined to be a kind person. In the case of distinguishing > >> between someone with accumulations to become a monk and the layperson, > >> this again is pointing to the accumulations as manifested in the kamma > >> that is conditioned to arise. > >> > > Herman: > > > Why insist that an act is due to accumulations? > > S: In the example of hearing sound and thinking music, there is > recognition or not and there is enjoyment or not. Would it not be part > of the development of understanding to know why there is this difference? > > I doubt there is any knowing in what you say. You have listened to and read stuff, and you are repeating it. Where is the understanding? You have never, ever heard unprocessed sound. Yet you compare listening to music to this alleged unprocessed sound??? > ======== > > > >> and why not go by the kamma which is > >> conditioned to arise from moment to moment. > >> > Herman: > > > No, you need to establish that conditioning of an act occurs, and what > that > > entails, rather than just asserting it repeatedly. > > S: It is all about the development of understanding, and this can't get > "established" simply by 'thinking', no matter how hard or how often > repeated. Trying to draw a line saying that this is all I need to know > and this I don't, is reflection of misunderstanding about how the > development takes place. In this regard, asserting repeatedly about such > things, can be understood as conditioned each time, but in and of > itself, such thinking is not an obstacle to the Path, unlike when we > think to 'control' all this and limit the field of study. > > I repeat, if you don't know what conditioned something, is it wholesome to repeat that it is conditioned? > ========= > > > >> But I think this would be a > >> different matter. From my side the impression is that your emphasizing > >> kamma goes at the expense of understanding the role of accumulations. > >> > >> > Herman: > > > If you do not understand that this present moment is constituted by the > > doing of something very specific and known, but instead "understand" that > > whatever you are doing at any time has very definite, but unknown > > conditions, you understand nothing. > > S: At the moment of stealing what is it that is to be known, the whole > act / concept of 'stealing'? So many realities arise and fall away > during the course of such actions, is one more worthy than another as > object of understanding? The fact that all these realities *are > conditioned*, why would you think this can't be understood at some level? > > What can I say? Breathing in long, he discerns I breathe in long. Making a long turn, he discerns I am making a long term. If you cannot even discern your intentions from time to time, why bother telling yourself you understand conditions? > ======== > > >> But of course you may be right and I do feel quite muddle headed, but > >> you'll have to explain what in all this is a case of turning kamma into > >> vipaka? > >> > >> > > Herman: > > > Well, what is the known reality of the present moment, Sukin, is it known > > kamma, or unknown accumulations and unknown conditions? > > S: Leaving aside what is known and how, my question to you here is: > Does hearing of the Dhamma about the Dependent Origination and > Conditionality make no difference as to how one thinks about one's > experiences / actions? > No, I asked a question first. If you don't know what the reality of the present moment is, I can accept that, but why shouldn't I think that your insistence that it nevertheless was conditioned (by conditions you also don't know) is highly questionable? Cheers Herman #111700 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 10:24 pm Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) kenhowardau Hi Sarah and all, ---- <. . .> S: > The Buddha knew all the different accumulations, but the most important thing is development of understanding of realities now. Why delay by trying to have calm or meditate on the breath first? ---- I know that question was meant rhetorically, but my answer would be "Because of wrong view!" Meditators think they have an option of practising satipatthana either now or later. But practising later would require the existence of a permanent self. And there isn't one! In the complete absence of anything that has a past or a future, satipatthana can only be practised now. Ken H #111701 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 9, 2010 11:09 pm Subject: The 3 Golden Gifts! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the 3 kinds of Buddhist Gifts? Three kinds of gift are mentioned in Buddhism, namely: 1: Amisa dāna: The gift of material things, 2: Abhaya dāna: The fearless gift of life, 3: Dhamma dāna: The gift of real Truth... Amisa dāna: – or the gift of material things is practised by people of all religions and is very common. Food, clothes and houses are given to people of little means or to refugees through various religious and social organizations. It is, no doubt, a good thing to satisfy the hunger of the starved & the yearning of the thirsty. This type of donations is highly recommended in Buddhism and is called the Amisa dāna. (The donations of material things). Next comes the Abhaya dāna: - or giving life to those who are in danger of life caused by fire, water or enemies. Sometimes we hear of people, who are about to die due to lack of blood. To donate blood and save another humans life is indeed a great thing. Donation of eyes and kidneys is also highly appreciated and they come under Abhaya dāna – fearless donation of life. The last one: Dhamma dāna: - or the gift of Truth of the Doctrine is said to be the highest of all donations on earth. Why so? Because it opens the Door to the Deathless Dimension! This no other giving is even remotely capable of... Openhanded Giving is the 1st Mental Perfection... Sabba dānam Dhamma dānam jināti Sabbam rasam Dhamma raso jināti Sabbam ratim Dhamma ratī jināti Tanhakkayo sabba dukkham jināti The gift of Dhamma excels all other Gifts. The flavour of Dhamma excels all other flavours. The delight in Dhamma excels all other delights. He who has destroyed craving overcomes all sorrow! Dhammapada 354 Most Gods actually became Divine Beings as a result of Giving! <...> Sumedha - the young millionaire - gives away all his property! Source: Ven. Weragoda Sarada Maha Thero http://www.buddhist-book.com Singapore Have a nice generous day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita, Sri Lanka * <....> #111702 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? egberdina Hi Alex, On 9 November 2010 12:43, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all > > you've got some good observations. However as I've learned from some > people, and some of my reasoning, that it is not impossible to fit what > happens into one's theory. > > We could say that brain-injury is a certain happening of rupas with > corresponding citta/cetasikas arising that do not remember some things. > So no problem. > > Sure, agreed. But of course brain injury does not only affect memory, it can also affect "accumulations". Brain injury can precipitate an entire change of personality. It is well documented and readily observable that the nicest people on earth can become greedy, self-centred, aggressive, addictive, sexually and / or socially disinhibited after a severe impact to the skull. So, if we want to have a useful theory of what is really happening, we must also include the fact that kusala tendencies can be altered by physical impact. Cheers Herman #111703 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Jon, On 7 November 2010 22:57, jonoabb wrote: > > Meditation as a state of absorbed concentration on the reality of the > present moment is properly called dhyana (Sanskrit; Pali: jhana) or samadhi. > [J: Jhana does not involve the seeing of the reality of the present moment] > What I write next is in relation to the present moment, not to jhana. It seems to me that the reality of the present moment is always an intended object, it is not a given object. To be aware of anything is always an act. Cheers Herman #111704 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) egberdina Hi Antony, On 9 November 2010 22:24, antony272b2 wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > Bhikkhu Nyanamoli wrote: > "When the seen, heard, sensed, and cognized (see Udana I, 10), are > misperceived to //be// (this that I see, . . . that //I// think about, > //is// that //man//, so-and-so, that //thing// of //mine//), to have > temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, > these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in > perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world > and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in > our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." > http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh052-p.html > > Antony: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that there is no role for "bare" attention > in the Buddha's teachings at all, as attention is conditioned by > fabrications (sankharas) and consciousness. He focuses on appropriate > attention (yonisomanasikara) instead. > http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/DependentCo-arising.pdf > > Thank you for your thought provoking posts. > Do you think there is a "raw world" without real past, present and future? I do. I think this is what "nibbana" refers to. Cheers Herman #111705 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Phil, On 9 November 2010 21:29, philip wrote: > > So I am walking through Tokyo and a woman wearing X (I know what X is but I > don't need to tell you all) comes along. Now I have looked at women wearing > X thousands of times I guess, in my life, and proliferated on it thousands > of times, so I have marked the woman, if you will. (Actually sanna has) and > have created a deluded perception of women wearing X as being beautiful. > That is a distorted perception, a vipalassa. Now when i see a woman wearing > X there is a kind of training, where a contrary perception of the correct > understanding, that a woman wearing X is not beautiful is being put into > play along with the unwholesome perception. This goes on again and again, > and gradually the wholesome perception begins to take root. It is in daily > life and only in daily life where this little competition of wholesome and > unwholesome perceptions can take place, where the mind can be trained to > process sensory objects in a more wholesome way, a way that leads to > happiness instead of accumualting suffering (by marking the object in the > way described above.) > > A good example of how to change behaviour. I have also used this strategy to break some habits, and it definitely works. Cheers Herman #111706 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:14 am Subject: Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > You said: > " I really would not separate those two and put them side by side as > separate elements." > > S: But they are very different aren't they, one being a mental and the > other a material reality? You can say that analytically, but are there two different things taking place when seeing experiences an object, or one event that we can break down into two via a categorization procedure? Seeing apprehends the visible object - that doesn't mean that there is "seeing" over here and "object" over there. Not in the act of perception itself. > ====== > Rob: Seeing experiences visible object, but not without a mental element. > > S: What is the mental element that you are referring to? Processing or delineating that which is seen into a dicrete bounded object that begins and ends in a portion of the visual field. We see objects with a background, not all by themselves floating in space. The mind has to focus on the object and select it as the foreground object, while ignoring other visual information. > ====== > Rob: What makes a visible object a discrete object? It is not just the > sensory element, but interpretation of the object. > > S: Visible object is reference to the one of the 28 material realities > that are, which is experienced by seeing consciousness. It is an > ultimate reality which manifests as different colors but without any > interpretation such as this is blue or red or yellow etc. Any > interpretation in terms of different colors or distinction between far > and near, high and low, this or that object is the function of thinking. I'm not sure where or how such pure seeing takes place, but I don't think you can see the colored field without some boundedness and delineation, based on color, texture, arrangement, shaping, assigned by the mind. > ====== > Rob: What is visible object? There is more to it. > > S: Such as what? Such as the amount of attention and selection necessary to see the object *at all.* Someone in a coma with eyes open will be in contact with the visual object but will not see it, because there is no attention, a mental function. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111707 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: ...it seems > to me that there is but one sense-consciousness operative at a time. I don't see any reason to think that we can only use one sense at a time. I think they were clearly designed to be used together. Seeing and hearing a saber tooth tiger at slightly different times and having to add them together to form a constructed mental experience seems pretty inefficient compared to just coordinating the senses in real time. I don't see why they would work that way. The individual citta idea is based on a presumption that there is only one discrete act of consciousness at a given moment, but I don't see any evidence for that. If we talk about a central object of attention at any given moment, I can go for that. Attention goes to the most important object according to shifting intention and awareness from moment to moment, but the idea that only one thing is happening in experience at a time does not make sense to me. > Of > course, what *seems* is not always what *is*. The main thing that I infer > from this effect is that what we perceive is constructed. > ----------------------------------------------------- It is certainly true that somewhere in the chain perception becomes a constructed object. Exactly at what point that takes place I'm not sure. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #111708 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry. > Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. > SN 55.5 Oh, thank you Alex. Finally we get the full context in which practice is included in the factors for stream-entry. Hm...I think some of our friends here have been withholding this information... :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111709 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > What I doubt is that daily life would be a causal factor for such an event. > And to the extent that by daily life one means being immersed in the > activities of daily life, daily life would certainly prevent any such event > occurring, IMO. I agree with your last two posts on this subject in the sense that I would not claim that daily life is itself a cause of awakening. But bringing mindfulness and other forms of observation to bear on what occurs in daily life turns it into the perfect laboratory for developing mindfulness, insight and seeing the nature of anicca, anatta and dukkha, all demonstrated continuously for someone with eyes and mind partway open. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111710 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? nilovg Hi Herman and Alex, Op 10-nov-2010, om 4:55 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > So, if we want to have a useful theory of what is really happening, > we must > also include the fact that kusala tendencies can be altered by > physical > impact. ------- N: True. Ruupa conditions naama in several ways and naama conditions ruupa in several ways. ------ Nina. #111711 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:29 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111090) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Well, how much of what we talk about here are things we "actually know"? (Speaking for myself, not much at all ;-)) > > I agree. I have experienced some interesting things, but they do not form a complete picture of things at this point, and there's a lot more I haven't even winked at. Makes it kind of interesting to be rowing in the dark, talking about which way the current is going. > > Of course, having a map is helpful. > =============== J: And I would say, in the present context, that having a map is everything ;-)) Jon #111712 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:47 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111091) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > "Genuine mindfulness" is not some weird and arbitrary attainment given by an unknown set of dark conditions, but a mental capability that can be practiced and developed. ... A meditator focuses on arising realities and trains the mind to return to focus on the present moment until it becomes an established skill. > > > =============== > > > > J: This assumes that dhammas can be selected as the object of concentration. I don't think that was the Buddha's message. > > I think that this is a continuing straw man, though I know you don't mean it that way. > =============== J: Not a straw man at all. It was a comment on your statement ""Genuine mindfulness" is a mental capability that can be practiced and developed". There can only be mindfulness if dhammas are the object, so any idea of being able to 'practice mindfulness' implies the ability to select dhammas (in general) as object. > =============== I think that one can practice something without trying to control or select dhammas. > =============== J: If the aim is to understand dhammas better, then any practice directed towards that is bound to involve an idea of trying to control or select dhammas > =============== > > To my understanding, dhammas can only be directly discerned by panna. Any attempt to focus on a dhamma as part of a practice is bound to fail, since the object would not be a dhamma but one's (imperfect) concept of what a dhamma is. > > Well, my radical - for around here - view is that conventional objects are okay for practice, and still develop positive qualities of concentration, mindfulness etc. > =============== J: I'd be interested to know what is the 'practice' to be undertaken in respect of conventional items as object, as you understand the teachings, and whether there's any limitation to the conventional items that may be the object of such 'practice'. > =============== > I know; it's really the crux of the conflict. I don't see kusala and akusala as independent qualities that arise due to mysterious accumulations. I see them as qualities of what is happening and how it is being approached. > =============== J: Well I've not in fact said that kusala and akusala are "independent qualities". To my understanding, they are terms used to describe/qualify cittas and cetasikas. In the case of cetasikas, some are by nature kusala (e.g., alobha, panna), some are by nature akusala (e.g., lobha, dosa), while some take the ethical quality of the kusala or akusala cetasikas with which they co-arise (e.g., intention, contact, feeling). > =============== So kusala can arise any time, and it can be related to anything. I don't think an intentional activity is akusala at all, unless it is forced or directed towards result instead of process, and I don't think that's a given. > =============== J: In the development of awareness, it is dhammas rather than intentional activities (concepts) that are to be known. > =============== Intention is not the enemy and it isn't the twin to akusala. > =============== J: No argument from me on this (but puzzled as to why you should bring this up ;-)) > =============== > How do you actually come to see dhammas? It can't just be by understanding them more and more thoroughly. > =============== J: The panna that sees dhammas directly is the same panna that understands dhammas at the intellectual level, but in a more developed form. (It is one of those kusala cetasikas mentioned above.) So there's no need for a linking 'practice' that somehow changes the intellectual understanding into direct experiencing. > =============== A blind person can read about seeing in Braille all day long, it won't grant vision. Leaving practice out of the equation gives no sensible means for the actual seeing to develop. It seems that you expect it to pop out of thin air. > =============== J: It depends on which aspect you are referring to. Panna has its particular conditioning factors, although they are not apparent to us, without which it cannot appear. On the other hand, there is no way of predicting when panna will arise or what dhamma will be its object. > =============== > Can you say more about this? I don't get the bridge between pariyatti and patipatti, it seems there isn't one. > =============== J: No bridge necessary. Pariyatti and patipatti are both are, in ultimate terms, the mental factor (cetasika) of panna. One is simply a more developed form of the other. > =============== > > The anatta spoken of in the teachings is not an idea but is a characteristic of all dhammas. > > It's still an intellectual understanding until one actually looks. I think it misses a great opportunity to refrain from looking closely at the anatta and anicca that surrounds us in the conventional world, waiting to see the fleeting mystical version in another lifetime. > =============== J: The Buddha did not speak of anatta and anicca in the conventional world, as far as I know; he spoke of anatta and anicca as characteristics of dhammas. > =============== > The conventional path is what the Buddha taught, as well as the "Noble" level in which a more refined understanding would emerge. There is no evidence that I've seen that suggests the conventional path is separate from the Noble path, and I think it is suggested by their proximity in the teachings that skill on the conventional 8-fold path leads to the higher understanding of the Noble path. > =============== J: This is the first time I've seen reference to a 'conventional 8-fold path' as taught by the Buddha. Do you happen to know the source for this expression (or is it some of your own creative ad-libbing ;-)) Jon #111713 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:49 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111092) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I understand what you are saying, but I think both usages are probably pretty common in the suttas. When Buddha says that a monk should "train himself thus" he's clearly talking about my version of practice - learning a skill. When he talks about a practice Monks should engage, such as the correct way to wear your robe or beg for food, then he's using your version. > =============== J: Well the question we're discussing is the meaning of the term 'practice' as used in the teachings, specifically references to the 'practise of the Dhamma'. So references to 'train himself thus' are something else. To my understanding, 'practice' in this context means actual moments of awareness/insight development (i.e., 'practice' as used in the expression "the practice of medicine/the law"), rather than intentional activities undertaken with a view to inducing awareness/insight to arise (i.e., 'practice' as used in the expression of "violin practice"). Jon #111714 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:56 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Alex (111095) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > ... > Or a clumsy young person joins a karate club and also get a punching bag at home, and practices skill at karate - to eventually be very skillful martial artist. > > Of course all things here are fully conditioned. Failure and success are all conditioned and without any controller. But they DO occur. > > Why can't the same principle be applied to lets say anapanasati and dozens of other formal practices found in VsM? > =============== J: Because the Buddha didn't say to start practising by doing such and such and keep practising until some kusala arises ;-)). What he said was to develop kusala; this can only be achieved if kusala is recognised as kusala as and when it arises. Jon #111715 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? jonoabb Hi Herman (111252) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Alex and Jon, > ... > This is something I do not understand. I asked a question about something > similar in Manly. If there is no craving, why do anything? Actions / > decisions are always geared towards making things to be other than how they > are. They are all motivated by craving. Wanting things to be different is > craving. Jon had an answer which I accept and understand: he said (if I > remember correctly) that the arahant does not conceive of him/her self as > acting/deciding - phenomena simply happen (for him/her). The arahant is free > of intention. > =============== J: If I said that I need to retract it ;-)) I follow the logic of the dilemma you raise: All actions of the worldling are prompted/accompanied by craving of different kinds. The arahant has eradicated all craving, thus there is no longer any motivation for him/her to continue to act at all. As we know, however, the reality is otherwise, since the Buddha himself lived and taught for 45 years after his enlightenment. To my understanding, the arahant continues to do the minimum that is necessary to maintain the body (feed, clothe, care for) until the end of his/her lifespan because he/she knows that otherwise there will be dis-ease of the body. Jon #111716 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:02 pm Subject: Re: Is there seeing now? jonoabb Hi Herman (111146) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > If there is any seeing now, then all of the below play a role. Sorry, > KenH, it is not from the Atthasalini, and no, I am not trying to > disprove the Abhidhamma. I post it only because in any understanding > there is always room for greater and greater precision. The following > is a listing of the contents from a book titled Seeing and it is > Edited by Karen K. De Valois (2000). > =============== J: The subject of seeing as dealt with here covers the 'processing' stages that would be considered as mind-door activity in the Dhamma. So, much more than the mere experiencing of visible object that occurs through the eye-door. Jon > =============== > > 1 Formation and Sampling of the Retinal Image > Larry N. Thibos > I. Introduction 1 > II. Formation of the Retinal Image 2 > A. Optical System of the Eye 2 > B. Physics of Image Formation 4 > C. Linear Systems Description of Image Formation 17 > D. Empirical Evaluation of the Eye as an Imaging System 21 > E. Schematic Models of the Eye 31 > III. Neural Sampling of the Retinal Image 33 > A. Retinal Architecture 33 > B. Functional Implications of Neural Sampling 37 > C. Evidence of Neural Sampling in Perception 41 > IV. Optical versus Sampling Limits to Vision 46 > References 49 > 2 The Receptive Fields of Visual Neurons > Robert Shapley > I. Introduction 55 ... #111717 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:04 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 jonoabb Hi Robert E (111265) > RE: > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? > =============== J: The understanding that all dhammas are anatta does not imply the denial of individual streams of cittas and cetasikas which, together with the rupas that are conditioned by the same kamma that supports those cittas and cetasikas, are conventionally known as beings. Unwholesome intention (i.e., akusala kamma) within a given stream of namas conditions unpleasant result (including akusala vipaka consciousness) within that same stream. Taking the life of another being is akusala kamma because the intention involved arises with citta that is rooted in aversion. Jon #111718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:09 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? jonoabb Hi pt (111280) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, RobE, > ... > pt: I'd like to take a stab at this too: > > 1. what's meditation/bhavana? - Development of kusala. > =============== J: If meditation is equated to bhavana, then why not just say 'development' instead of 'meditation', since for most people meditation has connotations of a particular technique used to develop kusala? > =============== > > 2. how kusala develops? - By the arising of kusala and recognising of it as kusala when it arises. > > 3. how kusala arises? - Conditioned by kusala in the past. > > 4. how is kusala recognised as kusala when it arises? - Based on developed right intellectual understanding. > > 5. how is right intellectual understanding developed? - Hearing and considering the Dhamma. > =============== J: Agree with all this ;-)) Jon #111719 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:12 pm Subject: Re: Saturday meeting jonoabb Hi pt (111549) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > pt: Hm, ok, but then what exactly does the "contemplation" actually takes on for the subject? I'm guessing it's not about verbal thinking like "ok there's the breath, and my life depends on it, etc". I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of understanding there, in that paticular moment of samatha when breath becomes an object. So, I'm guessing it would be the understanding/recognising of breath as... Hm, well it can't be recognised as rupa since that wouldn't be samatha anymore, so I guess it would be more like understanding that breath is, well, ... I don't know. I can't make sense of the sort of understanding that's neither relies on verbal thinking on one hand, nor on insight (dhamma as object) on the other. For sure, a concept of breath wopuld be the object in our case, but what exactly is it that's understood there about breath at the moment of samatha - I can't quite figure that out. > =============== J: OK, let's take death (another of the subjects of samatha contemplation) as an example. I'm sure that since you first became interested in the teachings, you've developed a more meaningful understanding of death: what it means, its significance, etc. So that there can be a few moments of useful reflection on it at times when the subject comes up. Not enough for sustained contemplation but perhaps a few moments of reflection that is kusala if not with some level of panna. Two comments. First, on the basis of the rate of development to date, for there to be maranasati at the levels spoken of in the Vism there would have to be much more development over a period longer than just this lifetime. Secondly, there would be nothing to be gained by focussing on death for longer than those few moments for which useful reflection could b maintained, since thereafter any further 'reflection' (in fact, not truly so) would not be kusala. It would be something the same with breath. Unless we have considered the matter properly, there cannot be any useful reflection when it appears. If we are beginning at scratch (for this time around), we cannot expect more than just a flash of useful reflection. Hoping this makes sense. Jon #111720 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Antony, and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/9/2010 11:24:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Antony, On 9 November 2010 22:24, antony272b2 wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > Bhikkhu Nyanamoli wrote: > "When the seen, heard, sensed, and cognized (see Udana I, 10), are > misperceived to //be// (this that I see, . . . that //I// think about, > //is// that //man//, so-and-so, that //thing// of //mine//), to have > temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, > these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in > perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world > and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in > our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." > http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh052-p.html > > Antony: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that there is no role for "bare" attention > in the Buddha's teachings at all, as attention is conditioned by > fabrications (sankharas) and consciousness. He focuses on appropriate > attention (yonisomanasikara) instead. > http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/DependentCo-arising.pdf > > Thank you for your thought provoking posts. > Do you think there is a "raw world" without real past, present and future? I do. I think this is what "nibbana" refers to. --------------------------------------------------- Interesting! This is close to, if not identical with, my perspective. I think of samsara as nibbana misperceived. -------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard Look! Look! /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root, One would go about searching for what?/ (From the Udapana Sutta) #111721 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/10/2010 1:27:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: ...it seems > to me that there is but one sense-consciousness operative at a time. I don't see any reason to think that we can only use one sense at a time. ----------------------------------------------- I don't say that it is NOT the case. It just doesn't seem to me that it IS the case. Actually, I don't care which is true. It is what it is. :-) ----------------------------------------------- I think they were clearly designed to be used together. Seeing and hearing a saber tooth tiger at slightly different times and having to add them together to form a constructed mental experience seems pretty inefficient compared to just coordinating the senses in real time. I don't see why they would work that way. -------------------------------------------- I just think that this is how it is. Of course it might be otherwise. :-) ------------------------------------------ The individual citta idea is based on a presumption that there is only one discrete act of consciousness at a given moment, but I don't see any evidence for that. If we talk about a central object of attention at any given moment, I can go for that. Attention goes to the most important object according to shifting intention and awareness from moment to moment, but the idea that only one thing is happening in experience at a time does not make sense to me. > Of > course, what *seems* is not always what *is*. The main thing that I infer > from this effect is that what we perceive is constructed. > ----------------------------------------------------- It is certainly true that somewhere in the chain perception becomes a constructed object. Exactly at what point that takes place I'm not sure. ------------------------------------------------ Nor am I. ----------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ========================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111722 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > But of course brain injury does not only affect memory, it can also affect > "accumulations". Brain injury can precipitate an entire change of > personality. It is well documented and readily observable that the nicest > people on earth can become greedy, self-centred, aggressive, addictive, > sexually and / or socially disinhibited after a severe impact to the skull. > > So, if we want to have a useful theory of what is really happening, we must > also include the fact that kusala tendencies can be altered by physical > impact. > > Cheers Maybe those "nice people" had really bad latent qualities that were simply suppressed (perhaps deliberately). When the brain injury happened, those qualities were no longer suppressed as much. A less radical example: If a person is really nice, I don't think that s/he will become a jerk if drunk. Getting drunk may dis inhibit some latent impulses. But I don't think that it can alter those latent tendencies, not unless one does habitual drinking to such an extent that it almost becomes a 2nd nature. With metta, Alex #111723 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Anthony, all, > S: I wouldn't be so concerned about "excuses to be lazy", so much >as not understanding the truth of dhammas as anatta as apparent when >we think in ways as you helpfully outline above. Do you say that purity comes in connection with, and holding the right views? > >Here is a list of other unhelpful questions from the suttas, followed by helpful questions based on the Four Noble Truths: > "Was I in the past?" > "What was I in the past?" > "How was I in the past?" > "Shall I be in the future?" > "What shall I be in the future?" > "How shall I be in the future?" > "Am I?" > "What am I?" > "How am I?" > (Majjhima 2) > .... > S: Yes, just the same kind of "self-loaded" questions as the ones in the examples you gave at the top. > .... And there is a very peculiar ommision ""Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I ? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?' 19. "In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self'[16] arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html Note: "Do I not exist" and "the view 'I have no self'" are considered to be unbeneficial... > 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? > ... > >Thanks for listening. Happy Uposatha Day everyone! > .... Please explain to me exactly what is meant by "understanding". Does on mentally analyze the experience and think that "these are just namarupas, no self is found"? Or what? How should understanding manifest itself? Is awakening found in connection with understanding? With metta, Alex #111724 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:09 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, > J: Because the Buddha didn't say to start practising by doing such >and such and keep practising until some kusala arises ;-)). What about lets say anapanasati sutta? In AN9.36 the Buddha DID USE THE PRACTICE SIMILE OF DEVELOPING A SKILL so what you say contradicts the sutta. "Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters[1] he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html BTW, clinging to Jhana can make one go as far as Anagami level - still good. > What he said was to develop kusala; this can only be achieved if >kusala is recognised as kusala as and when it arises. [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." SN 45.8 The above doesn't say only to recognize. BTW, if one only recognizes the unwholesome state, there can still be adherence to unwholesomeness and allowing it to be. That would go against the " "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen." ===================== One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html With metta, Alex #111725 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Robert, and also Ken) - In a message dated 11/10/2010 9:04:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Robert E (111265) > RE: > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? > =============== J: The understanding that all dhammas are anatta does not imply the denial of individual streams of cittas and cetasikas which, together with the rupas that are conditioned by the same kamma that supports those cittas and cetasikas, are conventionally known as beings. -------------------------------------------- Ahh! So, you admit the existence (in a sense) of "streams," i.e., of flows of psychophysical phenomena that, due to kamma, are interrelated and "hang together"! -------------------------------------------- Unwholesome intention (i.e., akusala kamma) within a given stream of namas conditions unpleasant result (including akusala vipaka consciousness) within that same stream. --------------------------------------------- Again, ahh! You speak of things occurring within a given stream of namas. This is just as I see the matter, and, IMO, as the Buddha taught it. Ken, for example, however, does not so view the matter. Right, Ken? Of course, Jon, neither you nor I consider a namarupic stream to be an individual reality, but merely a trans-temporal collection of interrelated phenomena and spoken of as a "thing" only as a matter of convention and convenience of speech. Are we, indeed, on the same page on this, Jon? If yes, this may be a first. ;-)) --------------------------------------------- Taking the life of another being is akusala kamma because the intention involved arises with citta that is rooted in aversion. ------------------------------------------------ Yes, and also because it may serve as a condition for suffering within that stream and within other streams. ----------------------------------------------- Jon ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111726 From: Nana Palo Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: introduce nana_palo dear Dhamma friends, i would like to re-introduce myself, Selamat Rodjali from Bogor, Indonesia. Many years ago, i was in this group under personal email: nana_palo@...; but recently the email is not used anymore. my new personal address is : nana_palo@.... thank you so much. warm regards, selamat rodjali #111727 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 9 November 2010 22:47, sarah abbott wrote: > > > The references to "having gone to the foot of the tree" etc, are describing > that one who has already gone there. > > Your explanation does not hold water, IMO, Sarah. MN 8 17. "Thus, Cunda, I have shown to you the instruction on effacement, I have shown to you the instruction on thought's arising, I have shown to you the instruction on avoidance, I have shown to you the instruction on the way upward, I have shown to you the instruction on quenching. 18. "What can be done for his disciples by a Master who seeks their welfare and has compassion and pity on them, that I have done for you, Cunda. There are these roots of trees, there are empty places. Meditate, Cunda, do not delay, lest you later regret it. 'This is my message to you." MN 152 "So, Ananda, I have taught you the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one; I have taught you how one is a person in training, someone following the way; I have taught you how one is a noble one with developed faculties. Whatever a teacher should do seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." #111728 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > On 8 November 2010 10:18, truth_aerator wrote: > > Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. > > Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Appropriate > > attention is a factor for stream-entry. > > Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. > > SN 55.5 > > > > > > Exactly so. And I would say that whether the first three have happened at > all only becomes apparent when the 4th is being done. Good point. "Herman - who puts his patipatti before his pariyati." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111729 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:56 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------------- > <. . .> > RE: > I don't think this is my comment above. Do you happen to have the number of the original post so I can look it over? > --------------- > > My mistake! It was 111524, and I have got you confused with Phil. > > Apologies to both of you. :-) No problem Ken. Ultimately we're all just nobody anyway... :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111730 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:30 am Subject: Re: metta, epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > hallo Rob > > :) you'll notice that I said 'can be a condition' not 'is a condition' as most of the time the crap jst comess out anyway. > and unfortunately sometimes even when I know before I say anything, that its not a good thing to say - I jst go ahead and say it anyway. > > that doesnt happen a lot but when it does and I wonder why did that occurr, I think mayb its something to do with the anusayas, you know, those nasty defilements that are present in each citta that arise when the time is right, so to speak. Ha ha, well you are not alone. When I look back at the way I have said certain things -- especially to Ken H. and Sukin -- it makes me avert my eyes from the screen. The defilements are rather thick, aren't they? :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111731 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > The Buddha rejects that his "aspirations" ie kamma were determined by his > > > prior accumulations. > > > > > > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. > > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned > > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > > aspiration. > > > > > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. I'm a little confused here myself, Herman. Kamma is not the only factor that causes various situations to arise - there are also conditions and accumulations that are apart from kamma, is that not so? Or do you give kamma - the emotional/intentional/action causes that you yourself put into play - the credit for all future results and conditions? In other words, is there nothing in your view but kamma leading to vipaka, or are there other conditions and accumulations at play? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111732 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about 'conditioned'. > > > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was conditioned > > > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > > > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > > > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > > > aspiration. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. > > > And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you believe that kamma is uncaused. I am questioning both sides of this argument. I think you are right that Herman is saying that kamma is uncaused. Since kamma is the cause that is put into play and leads to future vipaka, in what way is kamma caused? Are you saying, as Herman points out, that today's vipaka acts as kamma for future vipaka? Or how is it that kamma causes vipaka, but is itself caused? Caused by what? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111733 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > If you do not understand that this present moment is constituted by the > doing of something very specific and known, but instead "understand" that > whatever you are doing at any time has very definite, but unknown > conditions, you understand nothing. > > > > > But of course you may be right and I do feel quite muddle headed, but > > you'll have to explain what in all this is a case of turning kamma into > > vipaka? > > > > > Well, what is the known reality of the present moment, Sukin, is it known > kamma, or unknown accumulations and unknown conditions? Is it not the case that dependent origination is a series of interrelated causes and effects? It is my understanding that there is no independent cause that arises for no reason, but that every cause is the result of earlier and/or co-arising conditions. This is not your view? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111734 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: Howard: > > There's a bunch of interrelated material phenomena (a.k.a., rupas) > > that, due to their individual characteristics and the nature of their > > interconnection lead to what we call "our banging into a wall" and to many > > other > > events. (Actually, it is far more complicated than that, but this will > > suffice for this discussion.) The things is, however, that there is no > > individual > > entity (i.e., something more than a mere collection of simpler phenomena) > > that is "the wall." We, however, *conceive* of a separate entity called > > "the wall," because the interrelationship of phenomena enables those > > phenomena > > to act in concert in a lawful and distinguishable way. Our error is to > > attribute separate, self-existent reality to "the wall." (What I say here > > about the merely conventional existence of walls as things, I also say > > about > > the so called dhamma "realities" that many folks here seem to almost > > worship, > > but I lose *everybody* at this point! ;-) > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Small correction here, Howard. You don't lose me at that point :-) You don't lose me here either, Howard. I am still looking for an answer to the question of how paramatha dhammas can be paramatha since they are divided into three phases of arising, functioning and falling away, just like non-paramatha dhammas. Since they are in a constant flux how are they defined as being "a" or "b" at any given point? How is it that they are able to do "function a" which is a sequence or action in time within a single moment? And if they persist for longer than a single moment, how is it that they are timed to do an exact function in an exact amount of moments, while constantly changing and arising in specifically distinct circumstances each time? There are other related questions, but since the dhammas are not fixed in time, it seems that they break down into smaller parts just like anything else, and are not really "ultimate" or "final" "wholes." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111735 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:07 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, (Pt & all), > > We were really appreciative of your questions just in time for our discussion session yesterday afternoon. In fact your questions prompted a really interesting discussion on meditation and anapanasati for the entire time (almost 2 hours). I'll continue to add comments arising from one of Pt's messages after this one. > > I'll start with adding some of K.Sujin's brief comments on your qus which I happened to note: > > >1. Can it be kusala for the ordinary person with some knowledge of Dhamma to practice anapanasati? > .... > KS: Anapanasati must be kusala. Can we choose? > .... > >2. Can sitting meditation directed towards development of sati/awareness create conditions for greater understanding? > .... > KS: No. > .... > >3. Is it possible to practice sitting meditation without self-view being supported or magnified? > .... > KS: Same answer! > ... > >4. Are there some for whom it just naturally arise because of past accumulations to sit and practice anapanasati/satipatthana meditation for whom it would thus be kusala? > .... > KS: Anything can be done with understanding - anytime, any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. (If there is an idea of) special time, (there is the) idea of self. Striving - is it not lobha or ditthi or both? > > If one just follows one's own way without panna, there is no way to have anapanasati. It's not about "must", but about the Truth. The references to "having gone to the foot of the tree" etc, are describing that one who has already gone there. There must be the teaching of detachment. > > What about "sitting"? It doesn't matter at all what the posture is. Why sit? If one thinks it's a rule, no understanding. How come, as some suggest, that there is right understanding and awareness after sitting or whilst sitting, even if the initial motivation is wrong? This is reflecting, thinking only, but the general motivation of sitting to be aware or develop either samatha or insight is wrong, because there's no understanding, there is a wishing to obtain results. Of course, this doesn't mean that sitting cross-legged with an erect back and so on isn't a suitable way to sit! (We went on to discuss the various ways we found suitable for sitting whilst having our discussion! Some use a foot-stool, some a special cushion and so on!) Thanks for asking the questions on my behalf and thanks for reporting the answers - very exciting to hear the responses! I will look forward to your comments on pt's post as well. I will continue to look this over. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111736 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:09 am Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > We need to clearly differentiate between breath as object of samatha and breath as object of vipassana. > > 1. Breath as object of samatha: ... This is a great deal of good information. I will read through it at greater length and make some comments hopefully within the next day or two. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111737 From: "James" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:31 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E, (Pt & all), > > > > We were really appreciative of your questions just in time for our discussion session yesterday afternoon. In fact your questions prompted a really interesting discussion on meditation and anapanasati for the entire time (almost 2 hours). I'll continue to add comments arising from one of Pt's messages after this one. > > > > I'll start with adding some of K.Sujin's brief comments on your qus which I happened to note: > > > > >1. Can it be kusala for the ordinary person with some knowledge of Dhamma to practice anapanasati? > > .... > > KS: Anapanasati must be kusala. Can we choose? > > .... > > >2. Can sitting meditation directed towards development of sati/awareness create conditions for greater understanding? > > .... > > KS: No. > > .... > > >3. Is it possible to practice sitting meditation without self-view being supported or magnified? > > .... > > KS: Same answer! > > ... > > >4. Are there some for whom it just naturally arise because of past accumulations to sit and practice anapanasati/satipatthana meditation for whom it would thus be kusala? > > .... > > KS: Anything can be done with understanding - anytime, any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. (If there is an idea of) special time, (there is the) idea of self. Striving - is it not lobha or ditthi or both? > > > > If one just follows one's own way without panna, there is no way to have anapanasati. It's not about "must", but about the Truth. The references to "having gone to the foot of the tree" etc, are describing that one who has already gone there. There must be the teaching of detachment. > > I can't believe that KS is still teaching this nonsense. No one is going to automatically and/or naturally go to the foot of a tree, sit, and start practicing anapanasati unless that person is a bodhisatta on the path to sammabuddha!! Metta, James #111738 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:24 am Subject: Mara in the form of a mole philofillet Hi all I was inspired the other day by writing an imitation of one of the poems from Theragatha. Please allow me to write another one. I sat studying Theragatha at Starbucks when a woman sat in front of me and there was awareness of her and Mara appeared in the form of the mole just above her breast accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, and the gold pendant hanging there, and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. But there was firm resolution and No! there will not be proliferation here and now there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, though suffering, and in tears. And I went back to my book. But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke just above her breast accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, and the gold pendant hanging there, and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. And Mara saw an opportunity and appeared in the form of Sarah's words (which he paraphrased) and said "what is all your trying except self wanting this, self wanting that? What is all your trying except ignorance? Understand the present reality And be free." But there was firm resolution and No! there will not be proliferation here and now there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, though suffering, and in tears. And I went back to my book. But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke just above her breast accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, and the gold pendant hanging there, and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. And Mara saw an opportunity and appeared in Nina's words from the introduction of "The Conditionality of Life" and said "The Patthana also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an essential point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot be object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be overlooked." And Mara in the form of Nina's words invited me to have insight on the anatta nature of harmful proliferation, for it is only in understanding the present reality that one can really be free. But there was firm resolution and No! there will not be proliferation here and now there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, though suffering, and in tears. And I went back to my book And I stayed there in the company of the inspirational ones who crossed to the far shore. **** Nothing personal, Sarah and Nina, I am always so grateful for the way you get me thinking about Dhamma, but I am also very grateful to the Buddha that I will not accept the idea that instead of stopping harmful deeds with painful struggle, and in tears, it would be better to understand the anatta nature of the harmful deed one is doing, that if there is too much hard trying, it is self, and therefore wrong. Because this will condition a lazy attitude towards such deeds, I speak from experience.... Metta, Phil #111739 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. ptaus1 Hi RobE and Nina, > > And suddenly I am very interested in the Visudhimagga. Before it > > didn't really interest me, before a few months ago. So it is very > > interesting to observe that everything comes from conditions. > ------ > N: Not an easy reading. I found that it makes all the difference to > also study its commentary. Ch XIV is about the five khandhas and on > dsg I made a study. I cannot find this in the files, perhaps pt can > help. As far as I know, there's a file in the Files section that links to posts with Pali/English regarding Vsm XIV: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/z-VismXIVlinks.htm When you open one of the posts there, links to some of the other related posts in that thread will be at the bottom of the window. Another way would be to do a search for "Vism XIV" and then look in the results for posts in 2003 when Nina and Larry did the study. Best wishes pt #111740 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:58 am Subject: Re: Mara in the form of a mole philofillet Hi again all I'll just add that yes, there is place for reflection on the anattnaness, conditioned natured etc of harmful deeds, but the place for that is after the deed, to free oneself from excessive remorse. It would be terrible to have to carry around the weight of all one's deeds (though we do, in a subtler sense) and reflecting on the conditioned, non-self nature of the things we are sometimes propelled by inherited tendencies to do is very valuable. But not during the deed. When one resorts to reflection on anatta during a harmful deed, it is a gross exploitation of the Buddha's teaching for the purpose of accumulating suffering, I think. And yes, I know about the murderer Anugulima or whatever his name was. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > I was inspired the other day by writing an imitation of one of the poems from Theragatha. Please allow me to write another one. > > > I sat studying Theragatha at Starbucks > when a woman sat in front of me > and there was awareness of her > and Mara appeared in the form of the mole > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book. > > But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > > And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. > > And Mara saw an opportunity > and appeared in the form of Sarah's words (which he paraphrased) > and said "what is all your trying except self > wanting this, self wanting that? > What is all your trying except ignorance? > Understand the present reality > And be free." > > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book. > > But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > > And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. > > And Mara saw an opportunity > and appeared in Nina's words from the introduction > of "The Conditionality of Life" > and said "The Patthana also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an essential point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot be object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be overlooked." > And Mara in the form of Nina's words invited me to have insight on the anatta nature of harmful proliferation, for it is only in understanding the present reality that one can really be free. > > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book > And I stayed there in the company > of the inspirational ones > who crossed to the far shore. > > **** > > > Nothing personal, Sarah and Nina, I am always so grateful for the way you get me thinking about Dhamma, but I am also very grateful to the Buddha that I will not accept the idea that instead of stopping harmful deeds with painful struggle, and in tears, it would be better to understand the anatta nature of the harmful deed one is doing, that if there is too much hard trying, it is self, and therefore wrong. Because this will condition a lazy attitude towards such deeds, I speak from experience.... > > Metta, > > Phil > #111741 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:30 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111090) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: Well, how much of what we talk about here are things we "actually know"? (Speaking for myself, not much at all ;-)) > > > > I agree. I have experienced some interesting things, but they do not form a complete picture of things at this point, and there's a lot more I haven't even winked at. Makes it kind of interesting to be rowing in the dark, talking about which way the current is going. > > > > Of course, having a map is helpful. > > =============== > > J: And I would say, in the present context, that having a map is everything ;-)) Well, I would say, in the present context, that having a map is only useful if one also rows, rather than reading the map to understand it better, while refusing to touch the oars. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111742 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:54 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: This assumes that dhammas can be selected as the object of concentration. I don't think that was the Buddha's message. > > > > I think that this is a continuing straw man, though I know you don't mean it that way. > > =============== > > J: Not a straw man at all. It was a comment on your statement ""Genuine mindfulness" is a mental capability that can be practiced and developed". > > There can only be mindfulness if dhammas are the object, so any idea of being able to 'practice mindfulness' implies the ability to select dhammas (in general) as object. No it doesn't. You have repeated what you said originally as your explanation for why it is correct, but it still doesn't follow. One can practice mindfulness without selecting an object at all; or select the breath as object without any determination as to what will arise or how that will be perceived. In either case, dhammas are not being controlled or selected, merely attended with whatever degree of attention there is. > > =============== > I think that one can practice something without trying to control or select dhammas. > > =============== > > J: If the aim is to understand dhammas better, then any practice directed towards that is bound to involve an idea of trying to control or select dhammas > > > =============== > > > To my understanding, dhammas can only be directly discerned by panna. Any attempt to focus on a dhamma as part of a practice is bound to fail, since the object would not be a dhamma but one's (imperfect) concept of what a dhamma is. > > > > Well, my radical - for around here - view is that conventional objects are okay for practice, and still develop positive qualities of concentration, mindfulness etc. > > =============== > > J: I'd be interested to know what is the 'practice' to be undertaken in respect of conventional items as object, as you understand the teachings, and whether there's any limitation to the conventional items that may be the object of such 'practice'. Not much different from what K. Sujin spoke about in Sarah's recent summation, where the concept of breath or the "rupas that are ordinarily taken for breath" can be taken as object. > > =============== > > I know; it's really the crux of the conflict. I don't see kusala and akusala as independent qualities that arise due to mysterious accumulations. I see them as qualities of what is happening and how it is being approached. > > =============== > > J: Well I've not in fact said that kusala and akusala are "independent qualities". To my understanding, they are terms used to describe/qualify cittas and cetasikas. In the case of cetasikas, some are by nature kusala (e.g., alobha, panna), some are by nature akusala (e.g., lobha, dosa), while some take the ethical quality of the kusala or akusala cetasikas with which they co-arise (e.g., intention, contact, feeling). Okay, that sounds good. > > > =============== > So kusala can arise any time, and it can be related to anything. I don't think an intentional activity is akusala at all, unless it is forced or directed towards result instead of process, and I don't think that's a given. > > =============== > > J: In the development of awareness, it is dhammas rather than intentional activities (concepts) that are to be known. I didn't mean to say, or in fact say, that an "intentional activity" was the object of awareness or knowing. The "activity" is the setting in which the object is known, not the object. For instance, when sitting in meditation, "sitting in meditation," is not the object of awareness. Sitting in meditation is just a description of the fact that one is sitting to meditate. "Meditation" is also not the object of awareness, but the name for taking an object with mindful awareness. The object of awareness in the case of anapanasati is the sensation or experience of the breath. That is a rupa, as I have described elsewhere, or a concept, if one does not directly discern the rupa, but in either case it is either a direct or approximate experience of what is occurring. > > =============== > Intention is not the enemy and it isn't the twin to akusala. > > =============== > > J: No argument from me on this (but puzzled as to why you should bring this up ;-)) Well it is a reference to the constant dismissal of "intentional activities" as akusala, something which is quite familiar at this point. > > =============== > > How do you actually come to see dhammas? It can't just be by understanding them more and more thoroughly. > > =============== > > J: The panna that sees dhammas directly is the same panna that understands dhammas at the intellectual level, but in a more developed form. (It is one of those kusala cetasikas mentioned above.) So there's no need for a linking 'practice' that somehow changes the intellectual understanding into direct experiencing. That is if you believe that the intellectual understanding is, in and of itself, the bridge to the direct experience of that which is. I don't believe that, and don't see any basis for such a belief other than faith in a doctrine for which there is no evidence. > > =============== > A blind person can read about seeing in Braille all day long, it won't grant vision. Leaving practice out of the equation gives no sensible means for the actual seeing to develop. It seems that you expect it to pop out of thin air. > > =============== > > J: It depends on which aspect you are referring to. Panna has its particular conditioning factors, although they are not apparent to us, without which it cannot appear. I am not a big fan of believing in that which cannot be experienced and which is "not apparent to us." Based on what should we take this as an actual process that will yield this result in some mysterious way? > On the other hand, there is no way of predicting when panna will arise or what dhamma will be its object. Yes, but it's more sensible to have some logical understanding of how this comes to be, even if the actual arising of it is not predictable. Not just a theoretical understanding, but a methodology that develops that - and that is meditation in my view. > > =============== > > Can you say more about this? I don't get the bridge between pariyatti and patipatti, it seems there isn't one. > > =============== > > J: No bridge necessary. Pariyatti and patipatti are both are, in ultimate terms, the mental factor (cetasika) of panna. One is simply a more developed form of the other. Well that at least fills a theoretical gap in that formulation, but I still don't see any basis for how panna is expected to develop in an intellectual vaccuum, free from application to experience. > > =============== > > > The anatta spoken of in the teachings is not an idea but is a characteristic of all dhammas. > > > > It's still an intellectual understanding until one actually looks. I think it misses a great opportunity to refrain from looking closely at the anatta and anicca that surrounds us in the conventional world, waiting to see the fleeting mystical version in another lifetime. > > =============== > > J: The Buddha did not speak of anatta and anicca in the conventional world, as far as I know; he spoke of anatta and anicca as characteristics of dhammas. That is not apparent from sutta. In many cases he references the conventional world and talks about the impermanence of conventional forms. That is the most predominant way in which he talks about the three marks, is it not? It takes a special act of privileged interpretation to suppose that he is saying something other than what he repeats constantly. > > =============== > > The conventional path is what the Buddha taught, as well as the "Noble" level in which a more refined understanding would emerge. There is no evidence that I've seen that suggests the conventional path is separate from the Noble path, and I think it is suggested by their proximity in the teachings that skill on the conventional 8-fold path leads to the higher understanding of the Noble path. > > =============== > > J: This is the first time I've seen reference to a 'conventional 8-fold path' as taught by the Buddha. Do you happen to know the source for this expression (or is it some of your own creative ad-libbing ;-)) It's not creative ad-libbing, just a way of referring to the way Buddha talks about things in the world that you would call concepts, but that he doesn't. He talks about each path factor being "of two sorts" and those are the "two sorts" that I am referring to. In the Great Forty he talks about all the path factors with effluents and then speaks of the development of the Noble path factor as a separate tier that is a higher development without effluents. It is just the path factors with or w/o effluents, according to the sutta. From that I derive the "ordinary" and "noble" version of the path as being on a continuum. Right View with effluents "sides with merit and results in acquisitions." I am calling this the "worldly" path as its fruits are kusala fruits in the world, and he also distinguishes the Noble path factor that is a "factor in the path": ""Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. ... "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111743 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:06 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111092) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > I understand what you are saying, but I think both usages are probably pretty common in the suttas. When Buddha says that a monk should "train himself thus" he's clearly talking about my version of practice - learning a skill. When he talks about a practice Monks should engage, such as the correct way to wear your robe or beg for food, then he's using your version. > > =============== > > J: Well the question we're discussing is the meaning of the term 'practice' as used in the teachings, specifically references to the 'practise of the Dhamma'. So references to 'train himself thus' are something else. > > To my understanding, 'practice' in this context means actual moments of awareness/insight development (i.e., 'practice' as used in the expression "the practice of medicine/the law"), rather than intentional activities undertaken with a view to inducing awareness/insight to arise (i.e., 'practice' as used in the expression of "violin practice"). I purposely put my examples in the context of sutta so you could see that both are used in the context of Dhamma, rather than using examples from the the law and the violin, which I do understand the distinction. I think both are used in relation to Dhamma. When he says that "a monk should train himself thus" he is saying "this is what you should do to acquire this attribute." And that is referring to bhavana, development of the attributes of the Noble disciple. Those sorts of references are not any different than practicing the violin. The training, practice and development references are throughout the sutta body, and are often *not* of the form of the "practice of law," but represent the Buddha's program for development: DIPA SUTTA http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html "Monks, concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. And how is concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit? ... "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming the bodily fabrication.' ... "This is how concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit. "I, too, monks, before my awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, frequently remained with this abiding. When I frequently remained with this abiding, neither my body was fatigued nor were my eyes, and my mind, through lack of clinging/sustenance, was released from fermentations. "So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes, and may my mind, through lack of clinging/sustenance, be released from fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. = = = = = = = = = Please look carefully at the form of this part of the sutta, which repeats a number of times: "If a monk should wish: X,' then he should do Y." "Then he should do" is not a description, it is an instruction for how to develop this or that quality. This formula is maintained in the sutta all the way through the formless states to the attainment of parinibbana. And the entire sequence is developed through the continued refinement of anapanasati. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111744 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:11 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Because the Buddha didn't say to start practising by doing such and such and keep practising until some kusala arises ;-)). He did indeed say "if you want to develop these wholesome qualities, practice in this way." I guess I have to quote from the Dippa Sutta again: "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "If a monk should wish: 'May I in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not cutting myself off from both remain equanimous, mindful, & alert,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html > What he said was to develop kusala; this can only be achieved if kusala is recognised as kusala as and when it arises. This is not what he said in these quotes from the Dippa Sutta. Can you tell me where he did say this? It seems to me that he constantly said to develop kusala through continued developmental practice, as in the Dippa Sutta and all the other practice suttas which generally use anapanasati as their foundation and method and show how the higher states and path factors are systematically developed through practice. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111745 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:19 am Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111265) > > RE: > I may be going back to a very simple level of understanding, but can you explain to me, if atta belief (belief in living creatures) is wrong view, why is it akusala to kill, and why does it act as a causal condition for such terrible vipaka? > > =============== > > J: The understanding that all dhammas are anatta does not imply the denial of individual streams of cittas and cetasikas which, together with the rupas that are conditioned by the same kamma that supports those cittas and cetasikas, are conventionally known as beings. Well I am happy to hear that, like Rob K., you allow for the paramatha level to explain in more detail the conventional experience that we have of 'beings' and 'actions.' The individual streams of cittas makes sense to me, but is not believed in I am pretty sure by Ken H., for instance, and perhaps some others. > Unwholesome intention (i.e., akusala kamma) within a given stream of namas conditions unpleasant result (including akusala vipaka consciousness) within that same stream. > > Taking the life of another being is akusala kamma because the intention involved arises with citta that is rooted in aversion. Well this is a good explanation. Does it make sense to you that such akusala vipaka for a stream of experiential cittas can translate into the conventional "punishment" of being repeatedly burnt to death in a number of lifetimes? - "Punishment" is Buddha's term in these stories. It seems rather conventional in its form, just ordinary crime and punishment, no different from the explanation that would be given in the Bible - "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." After all the complex explanations of paramatha cittas, cetasikas and rupas, is that what kamma vipaka adds up to? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111746 From: "antony272b2" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Howard, Herman, Are you familiar with the teaching that "your present experience is made up of three things: the results of past intentions, the actual process of intention in the present moment, and immediate results of that present intention." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/meditations3.html#sticking Antony: I think that if the ultimate reality was a raw world prior to projections of past, present and future then it would be impossible to develop a skill. With metta / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Antony, and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 11/9/2010 11:24:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hi Antony, > > On 9 November 2010 22:24, antony272b2 wrote: > > > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > Bhikkhu Nyanamoli wrote: > > "When the seen, heard, sensed, and cognized (see Udana I, 10), are > > misperceived to //be// (this that I see, . . . that //I// think about, > > //is// that //man//, so-and-so, that //thing// of //mine//), to have > > temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, > > these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in > > perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world > > and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in > > our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." > > http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh052-p.html > > > > Antony: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that there is no role for "bare" > attention > > in the Buddha's teachings at all, as attention is conditioned by > > fabrications (sankharas) and consciousness. He focuses on appropriate > > attention (yonisomanasikara) instead. > > http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/DependentCo-arising.pdf > > > > > Thank you for your thought provoking posts. > > > Do you think there is a "raw world" without real past, present and > future? > > I do. I think this is what "nibbana" refers to. > --------------------------------------------------- > Interesting! This is close to, if not identical with, my perspective. > I think of samsara as nibbana misperceived. > -------------------------------------------------- > > Cheers > > Herman > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > > Look! Look! > > /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by > the root, One would go about searching for what?/ > > (From the Udapana Sutta) > #111747 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] introduce nilovg Dear Selamat, Op 10-nov-2010, om 16:26 heeft Nana Palo het volgende geschreven: > i would like to re-introduce myself, Selamat Rodjali from Bogor, > Indonesia. > > Many years ago, i was in this group under personal email: > nana_palo@...; > but recently the email is not used anymore. ------- N: Yes, I tried to contact you. Did you receive the books I sent to Bogor? How is your group doing? Any news welcome. Not sure whether Jetty is still alive? Best wishes, Nina. #111748 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear pt and Connie, Op 11-nov-2010, om 4:53 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Another way would be to do a search for "Vism XIV" and then look in > the results for posts in 2003 when Nina and Larry did the study. ------ N: No success. Perhaps Connie can help. Nina. #111749 From: "selamat rodjali" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] introduce nana_palo Dear Mrs Nina, Anumodana. I received the books. Very valuable for us. Recently we have an additional session, biweekly Abhidhamma in daily life discussion at the big Theravada Vihara at Sunter Jakarta, around 2 and half hours each discussion. Hope it will be very useful for our Dhamma friens to have a better Abhidhamma knowledge and apply it in our daily life. Mrs Tetty (Sujata Tjiomas) wa passed away few months ago. Until the last moment she still discussed, listening Abhidhamma discussion (CD MP3 format) that sent by Sarah (few years ago). Many thanks for this to all this group member. By the way. Hope you and Mr. Lodewijk have a good health. Kindly please forward my regards. Thank you. For your information, I have moved my address to my home: Teras Hijau Residence Blok B 1 no. 18, Tajur Bogor, Indonesia 16141 Great and happy to have contact again with you and all dhammastudy group members. May the Dhamma be the greatest blessing in our life. Mettacittena, Selamat rodjali Powered by Happiness Energy #111750 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] introduce nilovg Dear Selamat, Op 11-nov-2010, om 9:48 heeft selamat rodjali het volgende geschreven: > Hope it will be very useful for our Dhamma friens to have a better > Abhidhamma knowledge and apply it in our daily life. > > Mrs Tetty (Sujata Tjiomas) wa passed away few months ago. Until the > last moment she still discussed, listening Abhidhamma discussion > (CD MP3 format) that sent by Sarah (few years ago). Many thanks for > this to all this group member. ------- N: I appreciate your interest in the Abhidhamma and its practice very much. I am glad Tetty could discuss until she died and listened to an MP 3. If you have time it would be good if you can repeat here on dsg some of your questions and answers. Thank you for your good wishes, Nina. #111751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? nilovg Dear Rob E, just butting in. Op 11-nov-2010, om 2:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > You don't lose me here either, Howard. I am still looking for an > answer to the question of how paramatha dhammas can be paramatha > since they are divided into three phases of arising, functioning > and falling away, just like non-paramatha dhammas. Since they are > in a constant flux how are they defined as being "a" or "b" at any > given point? How is it that they are able to do "function a" which > is a sequence or action in time within a single moment? ------- N: Perhaps the word function may not be clear to you. Function, in Pali kicca, is not denoting an action over time. Each citta and cetasika have their own task or funtion, and they last only extremely briefly, like a flash. Seeing is only one short moment, but it is a citta that performs the function of seeing, cognizing visible object. Citta is the chief in knowing an object, be it visible object, sound, etc. Sa~n~naa is a cetasika arising with the citta and it performs the function of recognizing. Feeling is a cetasika and it performs the function of feeling. All of them perform their functions within a single moment. Knowing this helps us to understand that they are anattaa, beyond control. There is no person who could possibly control citta and cetasikas. -------- > R: And if they persist for longer than a single moment, how is it > that they are timed to do an exact function in an exact amount of > moments, while constantly changing and arising in specifically > distinct circumstances each time? ------- N: They do not persist. Gone already completely, never to return. --------- > > R: There are other related questions, but since the dhammas are not > fixed in time, it seems that they break down into smaller parts > just like anything else, and are not really "ultimate" or "final" > "wholes." ------- N: Ultimate realities, different from conventional truth, where we say: this person performs such or such action. Person does not exist in the first place: just momentary citta, cetasikas and ruupas. There are no 'wholes' as you say. ----- Nina. #111752 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. ptaus1 Dear Nina and RobE, > > Another way would be to do a search for "Vism XIV" and then look in > > the results for posts in 2003 when Nina and Larry did the study. > ------ > N: No success. Perhaps Connie can help. Sorry, I missed the following the first time around - there's a post (conveniently located in UP file) where Larry made an index of all the posts that have the Vsm XIV text and commentary: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55332 Best wishes pt #111753 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear pt, thank you for the link, I remember now that Larry made this. Nina Op 11-nov-2010, om 11:51 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > there's a post (conveniently located in UP file) where Larry made > an index of all the posts that have the Vsm XIV text and commentary: #111754 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) nilovg Hi James, good to see you again :-) Op 11-nov-2010, om 3:31 heeft James het volgende geschreven: > I can't believe that KS is still teaching this nonsense. No one is > going to automatically and/or naturally go to the foot of a tree, > sit, and start practicing anapanasati unless that person is a > bodhisatta on the path to sammabuddha!! ------ N: When a monk has done sweeping the yard, cleaning his dwelling, what else can he do? Not joining villagers and gossiping, talking animal talk. Better to sit apart and apply himself to a meditation subject and also to develop understanding of whatever reality appears naturally. As Kh Sujin said: It is understanding that should be emphasized. Nina. #111755 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, On 11 November 2010 00:47, jonoabb wrote: > > > J: In the development of awareness, it is dhammas rather than intentional > activities (concepts) that are to be known. > > I am sure that you would have a good reason for saying this. What is it? :-) I ask in the light of the following: "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. Cheers Herman #111756 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? egberdina Hi Alex, On 11 November 2010 02:31, truth_aerator wrote: > > > > > But of course brain injury does not only affect memory, it can also > affect > > "accumulations". Brain injury can precipitate an entire change of > > personality. It is well documented and readily observable that the nicest > > people on earth can become greedy, self-centred, aggressive, addictive, > > sexually and / or socially disinhibited after a severe impact to the > skull. > > > > So, if we want to have a useful theory of what is really happening, we > must > > also include the fact that kusala tendencies can be altered by physical > > impact. > > > > Cheers > > Maybe those "nice people" had really bad latent qualities that were simply > suppressed (perhaps deliberately). When the brain injury happened, those > qualities were no longer suppressed as much. > > > A less radical example: If a person is really nice, I don't think that s/he > will become a jerk if drunk. Getting drunk may dis inhibit some latent > impulses. But I don't think that it can alter those latent tendencies, not > unless one does habitual drinking to such an extent that it almost becomes a > 2nd nature. > These are certainly interesting possibilities to discuss and speculate about. Personally, I am wary of using anything that is said to be latent as an explanation for anything. And that only for the simple fact that something that is latent is in principle not knowable presently, only posited with hindsight. Belief in the existence and potency of latent tendencies, leads to the arising of the whole house of cards known as the unconscious, which is just another, but far more difficult to spot, version of atta belief, IMO. Cheers Herman #111757 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, >>> Herman: No, not at all. I act according to what I value. But what could >>> possibly cause me to value something? >> S: I'd suggest that your reference to "value" was necessitated exactly >> due to this inescapable fact of accumulations. >> > > Herman: It sounds like for you values and accumulations are identical. Sukin: Values are the result of the accumulative effect of sankhara dhammas. Which is that with every instance of citta with wholesome or unwholesome roots, tendencies to the same are accumulated. ========== > Herman; I am happy to > continue the discussion on that basis. Do you believe that because I > sometime in the past valued X, that is why I value it now? Sukin: What you value is one thing, thinking about it may be kusala or akusala. Acting upon these values is kamma which accumulates even more strongly the tendencies. Something that you value now may or may not motivate a positive reaction later on, since it depends also on other conditions for it's arising. For example you may love chocolate cake, however not always will you want to eat one when you see it. But surely, since you have had a liking for it in the past, the tendency remains, including when reborn as a being which would never eat such a thing. But I prefer not to think in terms of conventional objects such as chocolate cake etc, nor even such things as sweet, sour, bitter and so on. The reason is that for example in the case of chocolate cake, what is involved includes texture, smell and the taste includes bitter as well as sweet. Plus there is the fact of being drawn in by the 'idea' itself and this is dependent on memory and a result of thinking a particular way. How all this actually works would only be speculation on my part if I tried to explain. What I do believe however, is that what ever that goes on now in terms of reaction to any sense experience, this must have a cause in the past and at the same time accumulates as tendency. Metta, Sukinder #111758 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, >>> Herman: >>> If you are unaware of what conditioned / determined an action, is it kusala >>> or akusala to nevertheless insist that it was conditioned / determined? >> S: Hearing sounds, thinking, recognizing a certain tune that one >> particularly likes and enjoying the music, is this so hard to understand? >> > Herm: You misunderstand. You start of with insisting that everything is > conditioned. I am saying that if you don't know what those conditions are, > you really don't understand anything, you just have an untested idea. > > Take hearing sound, for example. You don't know anything about sound, yet > you insist that it is conditioned. There is no understanding in your > insistences at all. On that basis I question the wholesomeness of repeating > what you don't know Suk: You are saying that because there is ignorance, my making statements repeatedly, about hearing and sound, is useless and misleading. And you are saying that although I don't have any understanding about sound and hearing, I could still come to know that such thinking is unwholesome. Let me suggest that whatever level of understanding that you come from in making these comments, I come from about that same level in whatever I say........;-) =========== >>> Herman: >>> Why insist that an act is due to accumulations? >> S: In the example of hearing sound and thinking music, there is >> recognition or not and there is enjoyment or not. Would it not be part >> of the development of understanding to know why there is this difference? >> >> > Herm: I doubt there is any knowing in what you say. You have listened to and read > stuff, and you are repeating it. Where is the understanding? You have never, > ever heard unprocessed sound. Yet you compare listening to music to this > alleged unprocessed sound??? Suk: Well, this is just thinking on your part isn't it and could have been understood as such? I'd suggest that if and when you realize this, you'd know where I'm coming from and then it would not matter to you whether my statement about Dhamma is from direct understanding or not. The issue should never be about the level of understanding, intellectual or direct, but whether right or wrong understanding is being expressed. ========== >> Herman: >>> No, you need to establish that conditioning of an act occurs, and what that >>> entails, rather than just asserting it repeatedly. >> S: It is all about the development of understanding, and this can't get >> "established" simply by 'thinking', no matter how hard or how often >> repeated. Trying to draw a line saying that this is all I need to know >> and this I don't, is reflection of misunderstanding about how the >> development takes place. In this regard, asserting repeatedly about such >> things, can be understood as conditioned each time, but in and of >> itself, such thinking is not an obstacle to the Path, unlike when we >> think to 'control' all this and limit the field of study. >> >> > Herm: I repeat, if you don't know what conditioned something, is it wholesome to > repeat that it is conditioned? Suk: And if you keep speculating about the other persons experience, is this wholesome? I keep insisting that understanding must start and for a long time develop along the intellectual level. In support I try to also show the difference between, right and wrong understanding of what is heard. When something is being stated and repeated, this can therefore be either with or without a level of right understanding. You assume however, that it isn't. It looks like that you do not believe in such a thing as intellectual understanding, if so, I ask, what according to you takes place when someone hears the Dhamma and confidence towards it is aroused? ========= >> Herman: >>> If you do not understand that this present moment is constituted by the >>> doing of something very specific and known, but instead "understand" that >>> whatever you are doing at any time has very definite, but unknown >>> conditions, you understand nothing. >> S: At the moment of stealing what is it that is to be known, the whole >> act / concept of 'stealing'? So many realities arise and fall away >> during the course of such actions, is one more worthy than another as >> object of understanding? The fact that all these realities *are >> conditioned*, why would you think this can't be understood at some level? > Herm: What can I say? Breathing in long, he discerns I breathe in long. Making a > long turn, he discerns I am making a long term. If you cannot even discern > your intentions from time to time, why bother telling yourself you > understand conditions? Suk: Are you suggesting that I'm to be aware of thinking along a certain line, one which is aimed at some particular result? For example when I bend down to pick something up, wisdom according to you, would see the intentions involved at any or all the steps, and these must necessary be associated with the particular conventional person, object and action? And this is what you call discernment? The fact is that during the whole activity, there is seeing experiencing visible object, body consciousness experiencing hardness, heat etc, and also there is feeling, thinking, perception, attachment, aversion and so on. But more importantly, intention itself is a dhamma with particular characteristic and function quite differently from how we think about it conventionally. So it appears that the kind of observation that you are suggesting, in fact encourages ever more ignorance! I wonder if this is why you keep perceiving me to be merely 'regurgitating' and repeating what I've heard from others, given that you believe the Buddha to have recommended this above kind of conventional observation? As far as I'm concerned, the kind of distinction at the intellectual level which I make, has a direct relationship to what happens when there is more developed / direct understanding. The reference to breathing in long etc. is just thinking which happens or not for someone who is involved in anapanasati. Breathing does become long or short, and you can't stop thinking when it arises following different experiences through the five senses and the mind. But please tell, what can you understand from the concept of 'long breath' that you can't from say, 'my back hurts'? And if you can understand something from both, what is it that is understood? =========== >> S: Leaving aside what is known and how, my question to you here is: >> Does hearing of the Dhamma about the Dependent Origination and >> Conditionality make no difference as to how one thinks about one's >> experiences / actions? >> > Herm: No, I asked a question first. If you don't know what the reality of the > present moment is, I can accept that, but why shouldn't I think that your > insistence that it nevertheless was conditioned (by conditions you also > don't know) is highly questionable? Suk: Let me answer by giving an answer to my own question to you. Yes, hearing the Dhamma does make a big difference in terms of how I view and think about my experiences. Even at the level of Suttamaya panna there is confidence in the Dhamma and the Path such that one sees this as being the One correct teaching and Path and all the others wrong and hence as not worth anything. Were the Dhamma just another philosophy to which one is attached, there couldn't be the kind of confidence. Unlike when reading other teachings all of which deal with concepts only, confidence in the Dhamma is grounded upon the understanding of realities which make up our moment to moment experiences. So do I know the reality of the present moment? Taking seeing for example, I say that I do not have direct understanding of it yet, however I do understand intellectually as I am typing and looking at the computer screen, that it is that which experiences visible object. And I know to distinguish this from hearing and the experience of sound. I know also at more or less this same level, that what appears as lines on a white background forming words and and so on, is not what seeing experiences, but is the product of another mental reality, namely thinking. I understand therefore at this intellectual level, the difference between realities and concept. I also understand from reading your message, that the thinking about the ideas expressed happens following from reading the words on the computer screen and that this couldn't have happened were there prior to this, uncountable instances of seeing experiencing visible object and much thinking in between. So there is some understanding about conditionality as well. But I am guessing that you have a different understanding about how any of this takes place, and your objections towards my ideas is actually an objection to what the Abhidhamma and the commentaries say, is this correct? Metta, Sukinder #111759 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:54 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > 3. how kusala arises? - Conditioned by kusala in the past. > > > > 4. how is kusala recognised as kusala when it arises? - Based on developed right intellectual understanding. > > > > 5. how is right intellectual understanding developed? - Hearing and considering the Dhamma. > > =============== > > J: Agree with all this ;-)) What are the causes of "kusala in the past" that conditions arising of kusala now? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111760 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Of > > course, what *seems* is not always what *is*. The main thing that I > infer > > from this effect is that what we perceive is constructed. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > It is certainly true that somewhere in the chain perception becomes a > constructed object. Exactly at what point that takes place I'm not sure. > ------------------------------------------------ > Nor am I. > ----------------------------------------------- I liked your recent exchange with Antony on raw awareness w/o past or future as nibbana. That sounded good! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111761 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > A less radical example: If a person is really nice, I don't think that s/he will become a jerk if drunk. Getting drunk may dis inhibit some latent impulses. But I don't think that it can alter those latent tendencies, not unless one does habitual drinking to such an extent that it almost becomes a 2nd nature. I'm nicer when I drink, but it doesn't happen very often. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111762 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:05 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > "Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. I note in passing that some here have taken the Buddha's example to heart and like to "practice on a straw man" quite frequently. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111763 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) epsteinrob Hi Herman, and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Meditate, Cunda, do not delay, lest you later regret it. 'This is my message to you." > Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. > This is our message to you all." Wow, Herman you are good! Do my eyes deceive me, or is this Buddha himself clearly urging, nay, commanding his disciples to go meditate? He must mean something else - that couldn't be true! And do my eyes further hallucinate deluded akusala nimitas, or do I see that he urged Ananda to go "practice jhana." What could he mean by this? he couldn't actually mean "practice jhana," since both Ken H. and Sukin have well instructed me that "jhana is not part of the path," only dry insight is, and that Buddha did not want us to practice jhana. What could this possibly mean? Not only did he command his disciples to go and "meditate," and to go and "practice jhana," but he went on to say: "This is my message to you," and "This is my message to you all." He couldn't possibly mean us. He must have meant something else! Oh, Buddha is tricky in that he always says the exact opposite of what he means when it does not accord with our own philosophy. Tricky Buddha! [Apologies for sarcasm.] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #111764 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > As far as I know, there's a file in the Files section that links to posts with Pali/English regarding Vsm XIV: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/z-VismXIVlinks.htm > > When you open one of the posts there, links to some of the other related posts in that thread will be at the bottom of the window. > > Another way would be to do a search for "Vism XIV" and then look in the results for posts in 2003 when Nina and Larry did the study. Thanks, pt, good information! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111765 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Hi Herman, all, > Hi Alex, > > These are certainly interesting possibilities to discuss and >speculate about. Personally, I am wary of using anything that is >said to be latent as an explanation for anything. And that only for >the simple fact that something that is latent is in principle not >knowable presently, only posited with hindsight. By latent tendencies I've meant the 10 fetters. A person may have a lot of, lets say, sexual desire - but through certain physical or mental means suppress it. Just because a person at this time doesn't have them is not because they have been fully eradicated, but simply because they were suppressed. When external circumstances are "favorable" these will show up. This makes perfect sense to me, and this is seen in real life. It it possible to suppress an emotion, but not to eradicate the possibility of it arising when the circumstances are favorable for it. However, when a tendency is fully eradicated through wisdom, it can never arise again - no matter what. All these things make progress along the path, possible. If there were no such thing as latent tendencies, then it wouldn't be possible to eradicate and put a stop to them. > Belief in the existence and potency of latent tendencies, leads to >the arising of the whole house of cards known as the unconscious, >which is just another, but far more difficult to spot, version of >atta belief, IMO. Please explain. I don't see how the potential that can be eradicated = permanent and unchanging Self. With metta, Alex #111766 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:24 pm Subject: Re: Mara in the form of a mole epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi again all > > I'll just add that yes, there is place for reflection on the anattnaness, conditioned natured etc of harmful deeds, but the place for that is after the deed, to free oneself from excessive remorse. It would be terrible to have to carry around the weight of all one's deeds (though we do, in a subtler sense) and reflecting on the conditioned, non-self nature of the things we are sometimes propelled by inherited tendencies to do is very valuable. But not during the deed. When one resorts to reflection on anatta during a harmful deed, it is a gross exploitation of the Buddha's teaching for the purpose of accumulating suffering, I think. I think if one were to really realize anatta - not just intellectually, but see it clearly - in the moment of temptation, it would not just detach one from ownership of the akusala proliferation, but would also detach one from the craving/desire that led to it in the first place. In that case, both the ownership and the "evil deed" would be dropped at the same moment. But you are right that if the intellectual idea of "no self" is used at that moment to *justify* the continuation of the unwholesome act, then it is abusing the Dhamma to rationalize and indulge in the unwholesome impulse. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111767 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > just butting in. Always a pleasure. :) > Op 11-nov-2010, om 2:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > You don't lose me here either, Howard. I am still looking for an > > answer to the question of how paramatha dhammas can be paramatha > > since they are divided into three phases of arising, functioning > > and falling away, just like non-paramatha dhammas. Since they are > > in a constant flux how are they defined as being "a" or "b" at any > > given point? How is it that they are able to do "function a" which > > is a sequence or action in time within a single moment? > ------- > N: Perhaps the word function may not be clear to you. Function, in > Pali kicca, is not denoting an action over time. Each citta and > cetasika have their own task or funtion, and they last only extremely > briefly, like a flash. Seeing is only one short moment, but it is a > citta that performs the function of seeing, cognizing visible object. > Citta is the chief in knowing an object, be it visible object, sound, > etc. Sa~n~naa is a cetasika arising with the citta and it performs > the function of recognizing. Feeling is a cetasika and it performs > the function of feeling. All of them perform their functions within a > single moment. I do not understand the idea of a function taking place in a "single moment." As far as I can contemplate or imagine, it would be impossible for a function such as "seeing" to take place without itself having a beginning, middle and end of the "act of seeing." In that case it cannot take place in a single moment. How does "seeing" take place in that single moment? Does it arise as completed and fully realized seeing in that single moment in the exact location of the object? How does a one-moment cetasika "contact and see" visible object in one moment? It defies my imagination, at least. Perhaps I am missing something. When vittaka "beats at, probes, turns over" the object in order to understand it more fully, obviously a full inventory of the object would require a series of cittas with vittaka, but what takes place in a single moment of vittaka. In one single moment how can vittaka "beat, probe or turn over" anything? Does citta arise in that single moment already in contact with the object as it arises, and with the "beating" or "turning over" somehow instantly accomplished and completed in that same moment? And does not beating or turning over the object for greater understanding of the object have a beginning, a middle and an end, which would take more than one moment? It defies my imagination anyway. Perhaps you can explain it to me so that I will understand how this is supposed to take place? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111768 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > good to see you again :-) > Op 11-nov-2010, om 3:31 heeft James het volgende geschreven: > > > I can't believe that KS is still teaching this nonsense. No one is > > going to automatically and/or naturally go to the foot of a tree, > > sit, and start practicing anapanasati unless that person is a > > bodhisatta on the path to sammabuddha!! > ------ > N: When a monk has done sweeping the yard, cleaning his dwelling, > what else can he do? Not joining villagers and gossiping, talking > animal talk. Better to sit apart and apply himself to a meditation > subject and also to develop understanding of whatever reality appears > naturally. > As Kh Sujin said: any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. > It is > understanding that should be emphasized. This sounds reasonable enough, but if the monk can finish cleaning his dwelling and sit at the root of a tree and meditate in order to "apply himself to a meditation subject...to develop understanding of whatever reality appears..." which sounds almost exactly like my own description of practice, and sounds very much like a "practice" in any case, why should not I, after washing the dishes and scolding the cat, do the same on my livingroom floor? Is it any better for me than for the monk to go out and indulge in nonsense instead of meditating? I may not have a root of a big tree in my livingroom, but I do have a small tree. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111769 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:54 pm Subject: Vis. Ch XIV on one file? nilovg Dear pt and Connie, It seems rather tiresome for people to look up each single message of this list Larry made. Is there a quicker way, all on one file? Nina. #111770 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) upasaka_howard Hi, Antony (and Herman) - In a message dated 11/11/2010 1:24:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@... writes: Hi Howard, Herman, Are you familiar with the teaching that "your present experience is made up of three things: the results of past intentions, the actual process of intention in the present moment, and immediate results of that present intention." ---------------------------------------------------- No, I'm nor familiar with it. I'm also not 100% in agreement with it: 1) Of the past conditions for present experience, one's own past intentions (i.e., kamma) do not constitute the entirety. 2) Present intending may be a part of what is going on now in the mind, but as present "experience" it is not object content but mental functioning (i.e., cetasika). I do suppose that can be considered present experience, though. 3) Immediate results of present intending are not part of present experience - they are (very near-in-time) future experience, and fall into the first category of experience, namely "results of past intentions". Intentions that come earlier, even right before, are still past intentions at the time of the vipaka. ---------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/meditations3.html#stic king Antony: I think that if the ultimate reality was a raw world prior to projections of past, present and future then it would be impossible to develop a skill. --------------------------------------------------- I don't follow this, Antony, or see it's relationship to the foregoing. Could you please explain? --------------------------------------------------- With metta / Antony. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111771 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and James) - In a message dated 11/11/2010 6:07:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi James, good to see you again :-) Op 11-nov-2010, om 3:31 heeft James het volgende geschreven: > I can't believe that KS is still teaching this nonsense. No one is > going to automatically and/or naturally go to the foot of a tree, > sit, and start practicing anapanasati unless that person is a > bodhisatta on the path to sammabuddha!! ------ N: When a monk has done sweeping the yard, cleaning his dwelling, what else can he do? Not joining villagers and gossiping, talking animal talk. Better to sit apart and apply himself to a meditation subject and also to develop understanding of whatever reality appears naturally. --------------------------------------------- That "Better to sit apart and apply himself to a meditation subject" sounds to me like a matter of thinking, intending, and intentionally acting! -------------------------------------------------------- As Kh Sujin said: It is understanding that should be emphasized. ---------------------------------------------- Does one just *decide* to understand? If not, does it somehow "just happen"? I would say "No. One takes steps to foster understanding." Does one not take actions to foster understanding? Are intention and planning not involved? ------------------------------------------------ Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111772 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Something to See, ..., er, Hear upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/11/2010 10:00:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Of > > course, what *seems* is not always what *is*. The main thing that I > infer > > from this effect is that what we perceive is constructed. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > It is certainly true that somewhere in the chain perception becomes a > constructed object. Exactly at what point that takes place I'm not sure. > ------------------------------------------------ > Nor am I. > ----------------------------------------------- I liked your recent exchange with Antony on raw awareness w/o past or future as nibbana. That sounded good! :-) ------------------------------------------------- I believe these were Herman's words, though I took no exception to them. (He deserves the credit.) ---------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111773 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Herman) - In a message dated 11/11/2010 10:20:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Herman, and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Meditate, Cunda, do not delay, lest you later regret it. 'This is my message to you." > Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. > This is our message to you all." Wow, Herman you are good! Do my eyes deceive me, or is this Buddha himself clearly urging, nay, commanding his disciples to go meditate? He must mean something else - that couldn't be true! And do my eyes further hallucinate deluded akusala nimitas, or do I see that he urged Ananda to go "practice jhana." What could he mean by this? he couldn't actually mean "practice jhana," since both Ken H. and Sukin have well instructed me that "jhana is not part of the path," only dry insight is, and that Buddha did not want us to practice jhana. What could this possibly mean? Not only did he command his disciples to go and "meditate," and to go and "practice jhana," but he went on to say: "This is my message to you," and "This is my message to you all." He couldn't possibly mean us. He must have meant something else! Oh, Buddha is tricky in that he always says the exact opposite of what he means when it does not accord with our own philosophy. Tricky Buddha! [Apologies for sarcasm.] ---------------------------------------------- [Appreciation for the well-expressed sarcasm!] ;-)) It was good-natured, which takes the bite out. --------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111774 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:57 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On 11 November 2010 00:47, jonoabb wrote: > > > > > > > J: In the development of awareness, it is dhammas rather than intentional > > activities (concepts) that are to be known. > > > > > I am sure that you would have a good reason for saying this. What is it? :-) > > I ask in the light of the following: > > "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When > standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am > sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his > body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or > focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a > monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. > ------------------ It's good that you have asked that question: by listening to the answers you can learn something to your advantage. Any fool can know, when he is walking, that he is walking. As the commentaries point out, even dogs and jackals know that sort of thing. So what is so special about this "monk" who is walking? How does he know the present reality in a way that is so amazingly different? I hope you will listen to the answers. :-) Ken H #111775 From: "James" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:20 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > good to see you again :-) James: It is good to see you also. :-) > Op 11-nov-2010, om 3:31 heeft James het volgende geschreven: > > > I can't believe that KS is still teaching this nonsense. No one is > > going to automatically and/or naturally go to the foot of a tree, > > sit, and start practicing anapanasati unless that person is a > > bodhisatta on the path to sammabuddha!! > ------ > N: When a monk has done sweeping the yard, cleaning his dwelling, > what else can he do? Not joining villagers and gossiping, talking > animal talk. Better to sit apart and apply himself to a meditation > subject and also to develop understanding of whatever reality appears > naturally. James: But even in that case what the monk is doing is not "natural" or "spontaneous", it is a conscious and very difficult decision. That monk would "naturally" get into all sorts of mischief: idle talk, drinking, gambling, sexual misconduct, fortune telling, black magic, etc. Those would be the easy and natural things for the monk to do. The unnatural and difficult thing for the monk to do is sit and develop understanding of breathing in and out with the express purpose of developing that understanding. If one doesn't have the intention of developing the understanding, it is very, very unlikely to happen. > As Kh Sujin said: any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. > James: This doesn't doesn't make any sense. Can I kill a mosquito with understanding? Can I do some shoplifting with understanding? How about get drunk or high with understanding?? No "anything can be done with understanding" and "otherwise there is the idea of self" is redundant because there is always the idea of self, even during beginning understanding. It is > understanding that should be emphasized. James: Actually, the Buddha emphasized a balance between tranquility and understanding. > Nina. > Metta, James #111776 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Re: Mara in the form of a mole philofillet Hi Rob Of course I'm not denying that the perception of anatta is at the heart of the BUddhist path, it is, of course. But I think that thinking about anatta can become a kind of game for people and in the worst cases be used to justify a lazy attitude towards the accumualation of akusala. We have to remember that the Buddha didn't teach about such deep topics to people until he knew that there minds were prepared for the teachings, but we all want to go as deep as we can as soon as we can... The Buddha uses his listeners sense of self-esteem at times to discourage bad deeds, saying in one sutta "this is a way for inferior people, it is not for superior people, this is not for me." People can say that sutta is about dhammas, not people, and maybe even the commentary says that, but I will not believe that that paramattha interpretation of such a sutta was the Buddha's intent...he understood that when defilements are powerful and understanding is weak, subtle, paramattha interpretations can just end up adding to the fire by discouraging the necessary remedy, doing whatever is necessary to start putting out the fire. Understanding the nature of fire won't do that. Metta, Phil > I think if one were to really realize anatta - not just intellectually, but see it clearly - in the moment of temptation, it would not just detach one from ownership of the akusala proliferation, but would also detach one from the craving/desire that led to it in the first place. In that case, both the ownership and the "evil deed" would be dropped at the same moment. But you are right that if the intellectual idea of "no self" is used at that moment to *justify* the continuation of the unwholesome act, then it is abusing the Dhamma to rationalize and indulge in the unwholesome impulse. = = = = = = = > #111777 From: "antony272b2" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Howard, Thankyou for your thoughtful reply: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Antony (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 11/11/2010 1:24:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > antony272b@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Herman, > > Are you familiar with the teaching that "your present experience is made > up of three things: the results of past intentions, the actual process of > intention in the present moment, and immediate results of that present > intention." > ---------------------------------------------------- > No, I'm nor familiar with it. I'm also not 100% in agreement with it: > 1) Of the past conditions for present experience, one's own past > intentions (i.e., kamma) do not constitute the entirety. > 2) Present intending may be a part of what is going on now in the > mind, but as present "experience" it is not object content but mental > functioning (i.e., cetasika). I do suppose that can be considered present > experience, though. > 3) Immediate results of present intending are not part of present > experience - they are (very near-in-time) future experience, and fall into the > first category of experience, namely "results of past intentions". > Intentions that come earlier, even right before, are still past intentions at the > time of the vipaka. > ---------------------------------------------------- Antony: I found a couple of short suttas: "And what, bhikkhus, is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. The ear is old kamma... The mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old kamma. And what, bhikkhus, is new kamma? Whatever action one does now by body, speech or mind. This is called new kamma." From: Samyutta Nikaya 35:146 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi "(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn't, that isn't. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." A X.92 "Of the many possible ways of interpreting this formula, only one does justice both to the way the formula is worded and to the complex, fluid manner in which specific examples of causal relationships are described in the texts. That way is to view the formula as the interplay of two causal principles: one diachronic, acting over time; and the other synchronic, acting in a single instant of time. The two principles combine to form a non-linear pattern. The diachronic principle taking (2) and (4) as a pair connects events over time; the synchronic principle (1) and (3) connects objects and events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any given event is influenced by two sets of conditions: input from the past and input from the present." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/meditations3.html#stic > king > Antony: I think that if the ultimate reality was a raw world prior to > projections of past, present and future then it would be impossible to develop > a skill. > --------------------------------------------------- > I don't follow this, Antony, or see it's relationship to the > foregoing. Could you please explain? > --------------------------------------------------- Antony: I've noticed that if I view my experience as a raw world without past, present and future then my meditation is chaotic. If I sort out what parts of my experience are from the past then I can learn from my mistakes and develop the skill of fabricating the Noble Eightfold Path. Please forgive me if I am mistaken! With metta / Antony. #111778 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:39 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) philofillet Hi Nina and James (nice to see you!) and all > N: When a monk has done sweeping the yard, cleaning his dwelling, > what else can he do? "What else can he do?" Nina, that is a pretty odd way to describe the monk's practice of tranquility meditation as taught in Vism. Please reconsider that wording, there are reasons to doubt the suitability of meditation for householders, but I feel you are (unintentionally) denigrating the Buddha's teaching here...please don't allow desire to maintain logical consistency in your teacher's approach (doing that peculiar dance that is unique to students of AS in order to get around the "there are the roots of trees" passage) get in the way of common sense and veneration for the Buddha's teaching... Metta, Phil #111779 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > You said: > > " I really would not separate those two and put them side by side as > > separate elements." > > > > S: But they are very different aren't they, one being a mental and the > > other a material reality? > > R: You can say that analytically, but are there two different things > taking place when seeing experiences an object, or one event that we > can break down into two via a categorization procedure? > Suk: You are saying that I am projecting the idea of seeing and visible object as being two distinct realities onto an experience which in fact is a singular phenomenon. But it seems to me that your insistence that this is the case, is as much a projection on your part. I think the correct understanding of the Dhamma should not go against what is considered common sense, by which I refer to the reactions following basic experiences through the sense doors. When I am walking towards what I conceive of as a door, I don't walk straight into it, but I reach out my hand to open the door. When I hear my name being called, I turn around and see who is calling me. When I see chocolate on the table, I reach for it and put it in my mouth and the experience of taste sure follows. When I drive down the road, I continue doing so at high speed because I know that the road won't suddenly vanish. When I fart and I smell the smell, I know where it came from. All this points to the fact of the experience being one thing and that which is experienced, another thing. Sure there is no experiencing without that which is experienced, for example seeing must depend on the visible object, otherwise there won't be the experience. But there is absolutely no reason to then go on to suggest that one shouldn't differentiate the two, given especially that the conditions for the arising of the rupa which is 'visible object' is *completely* different and independent of that of the nama which is 'seeing'. . ============ > > R: Seeing apprehends the visible object - that doesn't mean that there > is "seeing" over here and "object" over there. Not in the act of > perception itself. > Suk: No, not in the fact of perception. Perception is a nama which performs its particular function of marking the object. It is the village boy who sees the glitter in the coins. The average village adult knows that it is coins and he can use it to buy something, and this is compared to the citta. Panna is the money changer who understands the real value of the money. In the example of the day to day reaction to sense door experiences, this can be compared to the work of consciousness which experiences clearly the object, and in doing so does not mistake it for something else. Panna on the other hand, although it does experience just that one object, in understanding the nature of that, this however becomes the very basis for making this important distinction. But there is also this, the Buddha pointed out the relationship between for example, the eye, that which is seen and seeing. In doing so, he was pointing out their dependency but also clearly their difference. Shouldn't we at least intellectually acknowledge this instead of going on to insist upon their being one indistinguishable phenomenon? =========== > > > Rob: Seeing experiences visible object, but not without a mental > element. > > > > S: What is the mental element that you are referring to? > > R: Processing or delineating that which is seen into a dicrete bounded > object that begins and ends in a portion of the visual field. > Suk: No, this would be the function of the thinking process. ========== > R: We see objects with a background, not all by themselves floating in > space. The mind has to focus on the object and select it as the > foreground object, while ignoring other visual information. > Suk: Again, this is all just thinking and is about thinking. The question sometimes arises if whether seeing experiences visible object as in one pixel at a time or the whole panorama at once, but this too is missing the point. We must remember simply that visible object is the one particular kind of element able to be experienced by that other one element, namely seeing consciousness. Depth, boundaries, foreground, background and such ideas as floating in space etc. can therefore be seen as missing the point. Sure, visible object does manifest as a variety of colors, however it is the fact of their being "that which is seen" which we need to keep in mind. ========== > > Rob: What makes a visible object a discrete object? It is not just the > > sensory element, but interpretation of the object. > > > > S: Visible object is reference to the one of the 28 material realities > > that are, which is experienced by seeing consciousness. It is an > > ultimate reality which manifests as different colors but without any > > interpretation such as this is blue or red or yellow etc. Any > > interpretation in terms of different colors or distinction between far > > and near, high and low, this or that object is the function of thinking. > > R: I'm not sure where or how such pure seeing takes place, but I don't > think you can see the colored field without some boundedness and > delineation, based on color, texture, arrangement, shaping, assigned > by the mind. > Suk: But you are not supposed to think in terms of 'colored fields', but just that which appears to seeing consciousness. This happens at the particular sense door and is in fact only one single citta in the process, followed immediately by the mind door process. ========== > > > Rob: What is visible object? There is more to it. > > > > S: Such as what? > > R: Such as the amount of attention and selection necessary to see the > object *at all.* > Suk: Attention arises with the seeing consciousness as it does with all other kinds of cittas. It is not like attention leads to seeing, given especially when seeing is a vipaka citta, the result of kamma. Yes, without light or opening one's eyes, there won't be any seeing. But all this points to other conditions and not any conscious 'attending', let alone 'selection'. ======== > > R: Someone in a coma with eyes open will be in contact with the visual > object but will not see it, because there is no attention, a mental > function. > Suk: There may be no conditions for the arising of sense base which is something conditioned by kamma. And lets say this person wakes up, but finds out that he can't see any more? Would this not be regardless of how wide his eyes are open and his desire to see? Metta, Sukinder #111780 From: Sukinderpal Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep (and Herman), > > > > > > Suk: You bring in 'determined' while I was talking about > 'conditioned'. > > > > His aspiration as with everything else that lead to it, was > conditioned > > > > by way of Natural Decisive Support condition. But at every point, > > > > accumulations played its part such that on meeting the Buddha of the > > > > time, the conditions were such that he couldn't have not made the > > > > aspiration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for again repeating that you believe kamma is vipaka. > > > > > > And until you explain to me why this is so, it looks to me like you > believe that kamma is uncaused. > > R: I am questioning both sides of this argument. I think you are right > that Herman is saying that kamma is uncaused. Since kamma is the cause > that is put into play and leads to future vipaka, in what way is kamma > caused? Are you saying, as Herman points out, that today's vipaka acts > as kamma for future vipaka? Or how is it that kamma causes vipaka, but > is itself caused? Caused by what? > S: No vipaka doesn't cause anything. You actually pointed to the answer in your post to Herman following this one, when you asked: "Is it not the case that dependent origination is a series of interrelated causes and effects?" I had pointed out to Herman the concept of the three rounds namely, vipaka vatta, kilesa vatta and kamma vatta. I said that vipaka was followed by kamma but in between there is the kilesa vatta causing attachment or whatever else to arise as kamma. Metta, Sukinder #111781 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:19 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) kenhowardau Hi Phil, ---------------- <. . .> Ph: > "What else can he do?" Nina, that is a pretty odd way to describe the monk's practice of tranquility meditation as taught in Vism. ---------------- Who do you think the word 'monk' refers to in Vism? It doesn't refer to just anyone who happens to be wearing a yellow robe; a real monk is a person with the accumulations to be a monk. --------------------- Ph: > Please reconsider that wording, there are reasons to doubt the suitability of meditation for householders, --------------------- A person who has the accumulations for tranquility meditation will be able - naturally - to practise it. Anyone else who tries is a fool. --------------------------- PH: > but I feel you are (unintentionally) denigrating the Buddha's teaching here...please don't allow desire to maintain logical consistency in your teacher's approach --------------------- You don't even know what A Sujin's approach is. She teaches that there are ultimately only conditioned dhammas - no self - no person. ---------------------------- Ph: > (doing that peculiar dance that is unique to students of AS in order to get around the "there are the roots of trees" passage) get in the way of common sense and veneration for the Buddha's teaching... ---------------------------- The only people who are denigrating the Buddha's teaching are those who see it a an ordinary, conventional teaching. Ken H #111782 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:47 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) philofillet Hi Ken > A person who has the accumulations for tranquility meditation will be able - naturally - to practise it. Anyone else who tries is a fool. Ph: I'm willing to consider the idea that vipassana meditation as practiced today is not taught by the Buddha, and I'm willing to concede (as I did to Jon) that the "clansman who is a beginner" is not a beginner as understood today, but I am not willing to concede that the instructions for samattha meditation in Vism are not instructions for samattha meditation. But I'll keep listening. > You don't even know what A Sujin's approach is. She teaches that there are ultimately only conditioned dhammas - no self - no person. Ph: I follow the Buddha, thankfully, not A.S, so I follow the gradual teaching. The Buddha didn't teach the above to people of limited understanding such as myself, perhaps that understanding will come to me someday, but I won't hungrily go grasping after it, and I won't encourage others to do so...perhaps in that way conditions will be fostered for an eventual understanding....if not, I will still have led a good life, with sila strictly developed, and will have increased probability for rebirth in a favourable situation where understanding may further be developed. You don't accept that this is the Buddha's teaching, unfortunately you have Passed Go and gone leaping ahead into a kind of mental playground where all sorts of deep teachings can be thrown about for pleasure...still, it's not a bad way to lead one's life, they are great teachings, even when used too lightly for pleasure, better than behaving badly in various ways, that's for sure! Metta, Phil #111783 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Jon, On 11 November 2010 00:59, jonoabb wrote: > > > This is something I do not understand. I asked a question about something > > similar in Manly. If there is no craving, why do anything? Actions / > > decisions are always geared towards making things to be other than how > they > > are. They are all motivated by craving. Wanting things to be different is > > craving. Jon had an answer which I accept and understand: he said (if I > > remember correctly) that the arahant does not conceive of him/her self as > > acting/deciding - phenomena simply happen (for him/her). The arahant is > free > > of intention. > > =============== > > Thanks for correcting my recollection :-) > J: If I said that I need to retract it ;-)) > > I follow the logic of the dilemma you raise: All actions of the worldling > are prompted/accompanied by craving of different kinds. The arahant has > eradicated all craving, thus there is no longer any motivation for him/her > to continue to act at all. > > As we know, however, the reality is otherwise, since the Buddha himself > lived and taught for 45 years after his enlightenment. > > To my understanding, the arahant continues to do the minimum that is > necessary to maintain the body (feed, clothe, care for) until the end of > his/her lifespan because he/she knows that otherwise there will be dis-ease > of the body. > So, I think you are saying the Buddha intends without craving. He is not attached to the outcome. He eats, he walks, he teaches, he seeks out solitude, but does so without craving. If I have got that right, thanks for clarifying your position. I must say that I cannot understand how this scenario is even possible, for I see all action as an attempt at modifying the world. To be unattached to the outcome of one's actions is to do stuff only for the sake of doing stuff. Why do it? As you say, one feeds the body to stop or prevent hunger, or to stay healthy and alive, not just for the sake of eating. One teaches for the benefit of others, not just for the sake of teaching. One avoids doing harm, because there is aversion to the consequences of that, not just for the sake of avoiding doing harm. I just don't get the idea that any of that can happen without any thought of how one one wants the world to be. Cheers Herman #111784 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Ken H, On 12 November 2010 10:57, Ken H wrote: > > > > > > J: In the development of awareness, it is dhammas rather than > intentional > > > activities (concepts) that are to be known. > > > > > > > > > I am sure that you would have a good reason for saying this. What is it? > :-) > > > > I ask in the light of the following: > > > > "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When > > standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am > > sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his > > body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. > > > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or > > focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a > > monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. > > > ------------------ > > It's good that you have asked that question: by listening to the answers > you can learn something to your advantage. > I agree, that is a good attitude to adopt if one is interested in learning. > > Any fool can know, when he is walking, that he is walking. > That is not my experience. In the absence of mindfulness, we are fools, without a clue as to what is going on. How often are we mindful? > As the commentaries point out, even dogs and jackals know that sort of > thing. > I am not sure to what extent other beings have the capacity for mindfulness. What I do know is that I also have the capacity to not have it :-) > So what is so special about this "monk" who is walking? How does he know > the present reality in a way that is so amazingly different? > > I hope you will listen to the answers. :-) > I fully intend to. Cheers Herman > Ken H > > > #111785 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara in the form of a mole egberdina Hi Phil, On 11 November 2010 14:24, philip wrote: > > > > Hi all > > I was inspired the other day by writing an imitation of one of the poems > from Theragatha. Please allow me to write another one. > > I appreciated both the form and content of what you had to say, Phil. Very much so. Cheers Herman > I sat studying Theragatha at Starbucks > when a woman sat in front of me > and there was awareness of her > and Mara appeared in the form of the mole > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book. > > But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. > > And Mara saw an opportunity > and appeared in the form of Sarah's words (which he paraphrased) > and said "what is all your trying except self > wanting this, self wanting that? > What is all your trying except ignorance? > Understand the present reality > And be free." > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book. > > But Mara appeared again in the form of the moke > just above her breast > accompanied by his army - the swelling of the breast, > and the gold pendant hanging there, > and the smokey light in her eyes, as she glanced at me. > > And there was wavering, and the urge to proliferate. > > And Mara saw an opportunity > and appeared in Nina's words from the introduction > of "The Conditionality of Life" > and said "The Patthana also explains that akusala can be the object of > kusala, for example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an > essential point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot > be object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be > overlooked." > And Mara in the form of Nina's words invited me to have insight on the > anatta nature of harmful proliferation, for it is only in understanding the > present reality that one can really be free. > > But there was firm resolution > and No! > there will not be proliferation here and now > there will not be further accumualtion of suffering here and now > and there and then I lived in that moment the holy life, > though suffering, and in tears. > > And I went back to my book > And I stayed there in the company > of the inspirational ones > who crossed to the far shore. > > **** > > Nothing personal, Sarah and Nina, I am always so grateful for the way you > get me thinking about Dhamma, but I am also very grateful to the Buddha that > I will not accept the idea that instead of stopping harmful deeds with > painful struggle, and in tears, it would be better to understand the anatta > nature of the harmful deed one is doing, that if there is too much hard > trying, it is self, and therefore wrong. Because this will condition a lazy > attitude towards such deeds, I speak from experience.... > > Metta, > > Phil > > > #111786 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? egberdina Hi Alex, On 12 November 2010 02:21, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > These are certainly interesting possibilities to discuss and >speculate > about. Personally, I am wary of using anything that is >said to be latent as > an explanation for anything. And that only for >the simple fact that > something that is latent is in principle not >knowable presently, only > posited with hindsight. > > By latent tendencies I've meant the 10 fetters. > > A person may have a lot of, lets say, sexual desire - but through certain > physical or mental means suppress it. Just because a person at this time > doesn't have them is not because they have been fully eradicated, but simply > because they were suppressed. > I'm sorry, Alex, but for you to say that sexual desire could be present when it is not manifest doesn't compute with me. And if it is suppressing that is present, surely that would be known? > When external circumstances are "favorable" these will show up. This makes > perfect sense to me, and this is seen in real life. It it possible to > suppress an emotion, but not to eradicate the possibility of it arising when > the circumstances are favorable for it. > > However, when a tendency is fully eradicated through wisdom, it can never > arise again - no matter what. > I think you are saying there is such a thing as an ongoing unconscious potential, and that it needs to be eradicated. > All these things make progress along the path, possible. If there were no > such thing as latent tendencies, then it wouldn't be possible to eradicate > and put a stop to them. > > How could it possibly be known that the in principle unknown unconscious is no longer there, unconsciously? > > > Belief in the existence and potency of latent tendencies, leads to >the > arising of the whole house of cards known as the unconscious, >which is just > another, but far more difficult to spot, version of >atta belief, IMO. > > Please explain. I don't see how the potential that can be eradicated = > permanent and unchanging Self. > I don't see how eradication of potential is any different to annihilation. Cheers Herman #111787 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) egberdina Hi Antony and Howard, On 12 November 2010 11:43, antony272b2 wrote: Sorry for butting in before your reply, Howard :-) > --------------------------------------------------- > Antony: I've noticed that if I view my experience as a raw world without > past, present and future then my meditation is chaotic. > I was very, very pleased to read this. Anthony. You are discovering something very fundamental. The world without intention is void of ...... well,..... intention. Seriously, well done !! > If I sort out what parts of my experience are from the past then I can > learn from my mistakes and develop the skill of fabricating the Noble > Eightfold Path. > If you're going to intend a world, it may as well be a good one :-) > Please forgive me if I am mistaken! > I have no intention of blaming you, so forgiveness is totally out of the question. Cheers Herman #111788 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) upasaka_howard Hi, Antony - In a message dated 11/11/2010 7:43:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@... writes: Hi Howard, Thankyou for your thoughtful reply: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Antony (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 11/11/2010 1:24:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > antony272b@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Herman, > > Are you familiar with the teaching that "your present experience is made > up of three things: the results of past intentions, the actual process of > intention in the present moment, and immediate results of that present > intention." > ---------------------------------------------------- > No, I'm nor familiar with it. I'm also not 100% in agreement with it: > 1) Of the past conditions for present experience, one's own past > intentions (i.e., kamma) do not constitute the entirety. > 2) Present intending may be a part of what is going on now in the > mind, but as present "experience" it is not object content but mental > functioning (i.e., cetasika). I do suppose that can be considered present > experience, though. > 3) Immediate results of present intending are not part of present > experience - they are (very near-in-time) future experience, and fall into the > first category of experience, namely "results of past intentions". > Intentions that come earlier, even right before, are still past intentions at the > time of the vipaka. > ---------------------------------------------------- Antony: I found a couple of short suttas: "And what, bhikkhus, is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. The ear is old kamma... The mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old kamma. And what, bhikkhus, is new kamma? Whatever action one does now by body, speech or mind. This is called new kamma." From: Samyutta Nikaya 35:146 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi ---------------------------------------------------- To the extent that rebirth itself is in part the result of kamma, one can say that the eye, ear, etc are "old kamma". But this is not intended literally. In any case, eye and ear are NOT vipaka, for vipaka is mental reaction due to intention/intentional action. ---------------------------------------------------- "(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn't, that isn't. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." ---------------------------------------------------- That is a general statement of conditionality. The first and third of these refer not to "causality," but rather to a simultaneous, unidirectional dependency, with the former of two conditions never occurring without the latter also occurring. The second and fourth of these pertain to causality. --------------------------------------------------- — A X.92"Of the many possible ways of interpreting this formula, only one does justice both to the way the formula is worded and to the complex, fluid manner in which specific examples of causal relationships are described in the texts. That way is to view the formula as the interplay of two causal principles: one diachronic, acting over time; and the other synchronic, acting in a single instant of time. The two principles combine to form a non-linear pattern. The diachronic principle — taking (2) and (4) as a pair — connects events over time; the synchronic principle — (1) and (3) — connects objects and events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any given event is influenced by two sets of conditions: input from the past and input from the present." _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html) -------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that Ven T is making a mountain out of a molehill with this analysis. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/meditations3.html#stic > king > Antony: I think that if the ultimate reality was a raw world prior to > projections of past, present and future then it would be impossible to develop > a skill. > --------------------------------------------------- > I don't follow this, Antony, or see it's relationship to the > foregoing. Could you please explain? > --------------------------------------------------- Antony: I've noticed that if I view my experience as a raw world without past, present and future then my meditation is chaotic. If I sort out what parts of my experience are from the past then I can learn from my mistakes and develop the skill of fabricating the Noble Eightfold Path. Please forgive me if I am mistaken! -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't mean to rule out events occurring across time. The preconditions to present events were, of course, in the past. -------------------------------------------------------------------- With metta / Antony. ===================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111789 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:56 am Subject: Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) kenhowardau Hi Phil, ------- Ph: I'm willing to consider the idea that vipassana meditation as practiced today is not taught by the Buddha, and I'm willing to concede (as I did to Jon) that the "clansman who is a beginner" is not a beginner as understood today, but I am not willing to concede that the instructions for samattha meditation in Vism are not instructions for samattha meditation. But I'll keep listening. -------- You say you are listening, but I have to wonder. Samatha has been explained so many times as a form of kusala consciousness, but you still insist that *akusala* consciousness (lobha - wanting results) can be a form of samatha practice. You're not listening, Phil! :-) ------------------- Ph: > I follow the Buddha, ------------------- I take that to mean you follow your own interpretations of what the Buddha taught. -------------- Ph: > thankfully, not A.S, ------------ Needless to say, A.S does not have a teaching of her own. Some of us like her way of explaining the Buddha's teaching, that's all. ------------------- Ph: > so I follow the gradual teaching. ------------------- Is there such a thing? I know the Buddha said the *way* was a gradual one, but I don't know if he ever said that about the *teaching* of the way. --------------------------- Ph: > The Buddha didn't teach the above to people of limited understanding such as myself, --------------------------- The whole teaching is available for all of us dummies to hear. Nothing is held back. ------------------------- Ph: > perhaps that understanding will come to me someday, ------------------------- No it won't. There is no "me" (no "you") that anything can possibly come to one day. There are just the presently arisen, fleeting conditioned dhammas. ---------------------------------- Ph: > but I won't hungrily go grasping after it, and I won't encourage others to do so...perhaps in that way conditions will be fostered for an eventual understanding....if not, I will still have led a good life, with sila strictly developed, and will have increased probability for rebirth in a favourable situation where understanding may further be developed. ----------------------------------- There is no "you" to be reborn or not reborn. ----------------------- Ph: > You don't accept that this is the Buddha's teaching, unfortunately you have Passed Go and gone leaping ahead into a kind of mental playground where all sorts of deep teachings can be thrown about for pleasure...still, it's not a bad way to lead one's life, they are great teachings, even when used too lightly for pleasure, better than behaving badly in various ways, that's for sure! ----------------------- That is your own idiosyncratic theory, Phil. Chuck it in the bin where it belongs! :-) Ken H #111790 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] introduce sarahprocter... Dear Selamat, I'm also so glad to hear your updated news and to know you all continue your Abhidhamma discussions. (For other friends, I remember even back in the '70s when Nina was corresponding with you]. Thank you also for telling us about Mrs Tetty and her listening to Dhamma until the end. She had such very strong confidence in the Buddha's Teachings. For any of your other group members, the many sets of edited discussions with A.Sujin can be found and down-loaded at this site: www.dhammastudygroup.org. Dhamma blessings to you and all our friends in Indonesia. Metta Sarah --- On Thu, 11/11/10, selamat rodjali wrote: >I received the books. Very valuable for us. Recently we have an additional session, biweekly Abhidhamma in daily life discussion at the big Theravada Vihara at Sunter Jakarta, around 2 and half hours each discussion. Hope it will be very useful for our Dhamma friens to have a better Abhidhamma knowledge and apply it in our daily life. >Mrs Tetty (Sujata Tjiomas) wa passed away few months ago. Until the last moment she still discussed, listening Abhidhamma discussion (CD MP3 format) that sent by Sarah (few years ago). Many thanks for this to all this group member. ============ #111791 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) nilovg Hi James, Op 12-nov-2010, om 1:20 heeft James het volgende geschreven: > That monk would "naturally" get into all sorts of mischief: idle > talk, drinking, gambling, sexual misconduct, fortune telling, black > magic, etc. Those would be the easy and natural things for the monk > to do. The unnatural and difficult thing for the monk to do is sit > and develop understanding of breathing in and out with the express > purpose of developing that understanding. > > If one doesn't have the intention of developing the understanding, > it is very, very unlikely to happen. -------- N: Those who become a monk see the value of having a life of fewness of wishes and without violence. They have the accumulations to lead such a life and in this way we can understand the word 'natural', it is natural to behave in such or such way. -------- > > > As Kh Sujin said: anytime, > > any object, any moment, otherwise there is the idea of self. > --------- > James: This doesn't doesn't make any sense. Can I kill a mosquito > with understanding? Can I do some shoplifting with understanding? > How about get drunk or high with understanding?? No "anything can > be done with understanding" and "otherwise there is the idea of > self" is redundant because there is always the idea of self, even > during beginning understanding. -------- N: Of course not in the way you just mention. Let us see these words in the right context. The object of satipa.t.thaana is any object appearing through one of the six doorways, and when one has listened to the Dhamma and rightly considered it, there can be condiitons to be aware of visible object which appears wherever one may be, at any place, at any time. Or seeing: there is seeing here or there, at any place, at any time. At the moment there is right awareness, there is no idea of self, but at other times, well, we can find out for ourselves how much clinging there is to 'I'. -------- > It is > > understanding that should be emphasized. > > James: Actually, the Buddha emphasized a balance between > tranquility and understanding. ------- N: At the moment of understanding, the citta is kusala and each kusala citta is accompanied by calm. ------ Nina. #111792 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Functions of citta, was: Should one try one's best ... nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 11-nov-2010, om 16:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I do not understand the idea of a function taking place in a > "single moment." As far as I can contemplate or imagine, it would > be impossible for a function such as "seeing" to take place without > itself having a beginning, middle and end of the "act of seeing." > In that case it cannot take place in a single moment. How does > "seeing" take place in that single moment? Does it arise as > completed and fully realized seeing in that single moment in the > exact location of the object? --------- N: When speaking of a function of citta it is not the same as a person who performs an action or function during a certain time. Each citta has its own function: we can say, it is not idle, it is 'doing' something, even in that briefest moment. Seeing-consciousness is only one moment of vipaakacitta, it sees visible object, it does not know shape and form, details, it does not define the object, it just experiences what is visible. It arises in a process of cittas, each performing their own function while they experience visible object. Seeing-consciousness is succeeded by receiving-consciousness, which 'receives' the object, has the function of receiving. It is still vipaakacitta. It is succeeded by investigating-consciousness. This is not 'investigating' as we use it in conventional sense. It is succeeded by several more cittas and then the object is experienced in a mind-door process. Even then there is no defining of the object yet, this comes later on in other mind-door processes. Thus, seeing as paramattha dhamma as explained in the Abhidhamma is different from seeing in conventional sense. It is important to know the difference, because only paramattha dhammas each with their own characteristic are objects of mindfulness and understanding. That is why we have to listen and listen again to explanations about seeing and visible object. ------- > R: How does a one-moment cetasika "contact and see" visible object > in one moment? It defies my imagination, at least. Perhaps I am > missing something. -------- N: Each citta is assisted by several cetasikas that assist the citta in cognizing an object. Each citta needs contact, phassa cetasika, which 'contacts' the object so that citta can experience it. This is not contact which is physical, or contact as we understand it in conventional language. Feeling is another cetasika accompanying each citta. Cetasikas and citta arising at the same time condiiton one another. Thus, contact conditions feeling, and it is not so that contact arises first and then conditions feeling. If we are not precise misunderstandings are bound to arise. ------- > R: > When vittaka "beats at, probes, turns over" the object in order to > understand it more fully, obviously a full inventory of the object > would require a series of cittas with vittaka, but what takes place > in a single moment of vittaka. In one single moment how can vittaka > "beat, probe or turn over" anything? Does citta arise in that > single moment already in contact with the object as it arises, and > with the "beating" or "turning over" somehow instantly accomplished > and completed in that same moment? And does not beating or turning > over the object for greater understanding of the object have a > beginning, a middle and an end, which would take more than one moment? --------- N: Vitakka does not arise with every citta, but it does accompany many cittas. It does not accompany seeing. Seeing sees the object directly and does not need vitakka. But the succeeding citta, the receiving-consciousness, needs vitakka to experience the object and so it is with the other cittas of that process and the cittas arising in a mind-door process. Vitakka performs its function in one moment of citta. Then it falls away with the citta. All these functions and characteristics are described using conventional language, but we should never forget that they refer only to momentary dhammas: just one moment of citta accompanied by cetasikas that fall away together with the citta. It is important to have correct understanding of vitakka; as a factor of the eightfold Path it is sammaa-sankappa, and its function is again momentary. It assists sammaa-di.t.thi to understand just one naama or ruupa at a time that presents itself. It hits the present object. ------- Nina. #111793 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) nilovg Hi Rob E and Howard, Op 11-nov-2010, om 20:32 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Rob E: And do my eyes further hallucinate deluded akusala nimitas, > or do I see > that he urged Ananda to go "practice jhana." What could he mean by > this? he > couldn't actually mean "practice jhana," since both Ken H. and > Sukin have > well instructed me that "jhana is not part of the path," only dry > insight > is, and that Buddha did not want us to practice jhana. What could this > possibly mean? ------- N: Before we discussed that jhaana can have two meanings. The Atthaslin (Expositor, Part V, Ch I, 167), with regard to contemplation of the object, uses the term upanijjhna, and explains this as twofold: as closely examining the object, which are the meditation subjects of samatha; and as examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatt. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called characteristic examining jhna. The commentray explains further the sutta text of the Middle Length sayings where it is said: meditate, jaayati. There is aramm.nupnijjhaana (the meditation subjects of samatha) and lakkhanupanijjhaana, the contemplation of the three characteristics. The conclusions you drew from instructions: "jhana is not part of the path," only dry insight is, and that Buddha did not want us to practice jhana.", this may be misunderstood, or without the context. The Buddha praised jhaana of samatha as a high degree of kusala. Nina. #111794 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) nilovg Hi HOward, Op 11-nov-2010, om 20:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Does one just *decide* to understand? If not, does it somehow "just > happen"? I would say "No. One takes steps to foster understanding." > Does one > not take actions to foster understanding? Are intention and > planning not > involved? -------- N: The right conditions are needed for the arising of right understanding. Listening to the dhamma, considering, as we discussed before. Intention and planning, these are expressions taken from conventional language that may cause the arising of ideas of: now I intend to foster understanding. ------ Nina. #111795 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? sarahprocter... Hi Huajun, I'm very glad to welcome you back to DSG then! Yes, you posted a long time ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/33952 Thank you very much for re-introducing yourself. I'm wondering if you have met our friend Jessica from Hong KOng? She's also been doing some translating, assisting on Mahasi retreats, inc. in China, as I recall? Where do you live? We're now in Hong Kong. Your translation skills are very useful. Pls join in any threads or start anymore new ones. Metta Sarah --- On Sat, 6/11/10, Huajun wrote: >I am very satisfied with your answer and explanation, I really appreciate it. >Yes, Huajun is my first name. I am an old member of this group but have not posted messages here for a few years,so I am just like a new member to most people here now. I have used Mahasi meditation method for 12 years and have attended meditation retreats leading by Sayadaw U. Silananda, Sayadaw U. Pandita and Sayadaw Sujiva. Last few years I spended a lot of time on Chinese Buddhist forums to introduce Mahasi meditation method. One problem I found was that the previous Chinese tranlantion of the "Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation" by some anonymous translator had many errors so I did a full revision of the translation in 2006. This year with the information I offered,some Buddhist friends in China invited a Chinese-speaking teacher from Malaysia who is a student of Sayadaw U. Pandita to lead meditation retreats and it is quite successful. Two retreats with 50+ students and 60+ have already completed and the third one will be held in December. With best wishes, Huajun #111796 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) egberdina Hi Alex, On 11 November 2010 02:48, truth_aerator wrote: > > > "Was I in the past?" > > "What was I in the past?" > > "How was I in the past?" > > "Shall I be in the future?" > > "What shall I be in the future?" > > "How shall I be in the future?" > > "Am I?" > > "What am I?" > > "How am I?" > > (Majjhima 2) > > .... > > S: Yes, just the same kind of "self-loaded" questions as the ones in the > examples you gave at the top. > > .... > > And there is a very peculiar ommision > Yes, all of them are notable ones. > > ""Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? > Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I ? From where has this soul come? Where > will this soul go?' > > 19. "In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six > [wrong] views. The view 'I have self'[16] arises in him really and firmly. > Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. " > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html > > Note: "Do I not exist" and "the view 'I have no self'" are considered to be > unbeneficial... > Sweet!! Thanks Herman > > 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? > > ... > > >Thanks for listening. Happy Uposatha Day everyone! > > .... > > Please explain to me exactly what is meant by "understanding". Does on > mentally analyze the experience and think that "these are just namarupas, no > self is found"? > > Or what? How should understanding manifest itself? > > Is awakening found in connection with understanding? > > With metta, > > Alex > > > #111797 From: "James" Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:33 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: At the moment of understanding, the citta is kusala and each > kusala citta is accompanied by calm. > ------ James: Right, this is the most important point. Understanding must be accompanied by calm. Can understanding occur while one is washing the dishes for example? Sure, as long as one is calm while washing the dishes. If one is angry, lonely, upset, depressed, horny, or any other numerous other other mental states that aren't calm while washing the dishes, then understanding cannot arise while washing the dishes- no matter how much one knows about the Dhamma. This is important to emphasize. Insight and tranquility go hand-in-hand. Metta, James #111798 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Phil) - In a message dated 11/12/2010 2:56:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Phil, ------- Ph: I'm willing to consider the idea that vipassana meditation as practiced today is not taught by the Buddha, and I'm willing to concede (as I did to Jon) that the "clansman who is a beginner" is not a beginner as understood today, but I am not willing to concede that the instructions for samattha meditation in Vism are not instructions for samattha meditation. But I'll keep listening. -------- You say you are listening, but I have to wonder. Samatha has been explained so many times as a form of kusala consciousness, but you still insist that *akusala* consciousness (lobha - wanting results) can be a form of samatha practice. You're not listening, Phil! :-) ---------------------------------------------------- Jhanas are wholesome. The states through which one passes in cultivating jhanas need not be 100% wholesome. If there were only wholesome states, there'd be no beginners - not even middling folks for that matter. --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Ph: > I follow the Buddha, ------------------- I take that to mean you follow your own interpretations of what the Buddha taught. ------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, Ken. You as well. ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Ph: > thankfully, not A.S, ------------ Needless to say, A.S does not have a teaching of her own. Some of us like her way of explaining the Buddha's teaching, that's all. ------------------------------------------------------------------ One likes what fits their own perspective. If you don't realize that, then you *really* are out of touch. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Ph: > so I follow the gradual teaching. ------------------- Is there such a thing? I know the Buddha said the *way* was a gradual one, but I don't know if he ever said that about the *teaching* of the way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many suttas were explicitly described as "gradual teachings". Likewise, some others were described as "teachings-in-short". One finds this out when actually reading suttas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ph: > The Buddha didn't teach the above to people of limited understanding such as myself, --------------------------- The whole teaching is available for all of us dummies to hear. Nothing is held back. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is all recorded (pretty much), but not all things were taught to all folks in the same way. The Kalama Sutta, for example, was taught to philosophically-inclined folks. Many things were taught differently to householders than to monks. You know that, Ken. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Ph: > perhaps that understanding will come to me someday, ------------------------- No it won't. There is no "me" (no "you") that anything can possibly come to one day. There are just the presently arisen, fleeting conditioned dhammas. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you throw that intothe midst of an otherwise "conventional" discussion? Doing that is nothing more than an argumentation trick. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Ph: > but I won't hungrily go grasping after it, and I won't encourage others to do so...perhaps in that way conditions will be fostered for an eventual understanding....if not, I will still have led a good life, with sila strictly developed, and will have increased probability for rebirth in a favourable situation where understanding may further be developed. ----------------------------------- There is no "you" to be reborn or not reborn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- So, you continue with bowing out of the discussion! ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Ph: > You don't accept that this is the Buddha's teaching, unfortunately you have Passed Go and gone leaping ahead into a kind of mental playground where all sorts of deep teachings can be thrown about for pleasure...still, it's not a bad way to lead one's life, they are great teachings, even when used too lightly for pleasure, better than behaving badly in various ways, that's for sure! ----------------------- That is your own idiosyncratic theory, Phil. Chuck it in the bin where it belongs! :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you speak as "from on high"? You've not reached the mountaintop. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111799 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with K.Sujin: Anapanasati 1 (was Re: metta) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/12/2010 5:43:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi HOward, Op 11-nov-2010, om 20:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Does one just *decide* to understand? If not, does it somehow "just > happen"? I would say "No. One takes steps to foster understanding." > Does one > not take actions to foster understanding? Are intention and > planning not > involved? -------- N: The right conditions are needed for the arising of right understanding. Listening to the dhamma, considering, as we discussed before. Intention and planning, these are expressions taken from conventional language that may cause the arising of ideas of: now I intend to foster understanding. ------ Nina.