#117801 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:48 pm Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina Come to think of it, I'll drop this topic. I am totally clued out, have to do some reading first. But maybe others would like to pick it up... Metta, Phil #117802 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:55 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Op 25-sep-2011, om 13:48 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Come to think of it, I'll drop this topic. ----- N: Interesting to read, I forgot what I asked before. I cannot react now, so much work. But it is worth while. Nina. #117803 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:07 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 pt, Regarding: pt: "Hm, interesting you both say sarcasm is with dosa...sarcasm can happen as a response to dosa...it comes with pleasant feeling...and i assumed with mana because at the time i think i'm better than the other person...i thought dosa cannot arise with pleasant feeling." Scott: Wouldn't it be possible for all of these various mental factors, and others, to arise and fall away over the course of, say, 'composing a sarcastic post?' One might even say that the sarcastic style, speaking conventionally, could be, at times, a function of a moderation of 'speech' that follows the knowledge that dosa has arisen. There is a lot of thinking going on after reading a post and while 'composing' a reply. pt: "Further i wonder if 'harsh' speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person.." Scott: My guess is that it refers to the underlying citta etc. As with metta, with concept of other person as object, it is the actual dhamma metta that is operative and being developed. The 'effect it has on the other person' is irrelevant to this sort of consideration. Thoughts about the other person are obviously interspersed in the mix. And what about if these same dhammas you describe do arise and fall away, say with equal strength, but the writer manages to compose a non-sarcastic post? The post would appear to be so reasonable and the writer to be so kind, when, in fact, the same dhammas had been exercised. The non-sarcastic post may belie the same precedents. Or it may not, obviously. The non-sarcastic post could belie either kusala and akusala dhammas, as equally as could a sarcastic post. It's not always about what it looks like. Sincerely, Scott. #117804 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma can be Modified! upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 9/25/2011 12:42:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi Howard, c: Catchy but misleading title/subject line, sir. Ditto, the phrase "instant karma". ============ H: Yes, it's about vipaka not kamma. "Vipaka can be offset" and "instant vipaka" would be better. ============ c: the way it's usually meant, yeah, but is there such a beast? For sure, kamma committed is instantly kamma, but i think, if not always, then at least for the most part, vipaka's from 'some other time' kamma. peace, connie =============================== I believe that consequences of kamma, including vipaka, often come about quite quickly - though, of course, in many cases after aeons! The cases of the fallout coming about very quickly are sloppily called "instant karma". With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117805 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma can be Modified! nichiconn Hi Howard, >H: I believe that consequences of kamma, including vipaka, often come about quite quickly - though, of course, in many cases after aeons! The cases of the fallout coming about very quickly are sloppily called "instant karma". > Timelines aside, there are usually big wholes in stories of "instant karma". We fall so easily into the belief that "I do", taking both rupa and nama for self. Most people have never heard of "vipaka citta"; but what do you mean about other consequences? curious, connie #117806 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:54 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Scott > pt: "Further i wonder if 'harsh' speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person.." > > Scott: My guess is that it refers to the underlying citta etc. As with metta, with concept of other person as object, it is the actual dhamma metta that is operative and being developed. The 'effect it has on the other person' is irrelevant to this sort of consideration. Ph: Not that her word is almighty, I heard A. Sujin talking about the form of dana that is offering freedom from fear (by not responding to dosa in a harsh way) and she said that it comes down to "not causing unpleasant mental feeling." When I heard it I thought of you because I always remember your expressing a belief that our behaviour could not impact others. Metta, Phil #117807 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma can be Modified! upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 9/25/2011 10:53:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Timelines aside, there are usually big wholes in stories of "instant karma". We fall so easily into the belief that "I do", taking both rupa and nama for self. Most people have never heard of "vipaka citta"; but what do you mean about other consequences? ------------------------------------------- HCW: Not all phenomena conditioned by kamma are vipaka. There is kammapatha that "carries out" the kamma. ------------------------------------------ curious, ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117808 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:04 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi again, > > pt: "Further i wonder if 'harsh' speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person.." > > > > Scott: My guess is that it refers to the underlying citta etc. As with metta, with concept of other person as object, it is the actual dhamma metta that is operative and being developed. The 'effect it has on the other person' is irrelevant to this sort of consideration. > > Ph: Not that her word is almighty, I heard A. Sujin talking about the form of dana that is offering freedom from fear (by not responding to dosa in a harsh way) and she said that it comes down to "not causing unpleasant mental feeling." When I heard it I thought of you because I always remember your expressing a belief that our behaviour could not impact others. ph: come to think of it, technically speaking, vipaka of harsh words would be result of their kamma, not of our deed, that will produce our own vipaka, maybe that was your point. Never mind, I am kind of scared of you at the moment, like of a Cronenburg psycho shrink gone on a rampage. Thank God you're not a surgeon!!! Metta, Phil #117809 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:05 am Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...I heard A. Sujin talking about the form of dana that is offering freedom from fear (by not responding to dosa in a harsh way) and she said that it comes down to 'not causing unpleasant mental feeling.' When I heard it I thought of you because I always remember your expressing a belief that our behaviour could not impact others." Scott: I still say that the reaction of the other is irrelevant and is down to the other. The idea of 'not wanting to cause unpleasant mental feeling' is still only thinking. If metta arises naturally (and not a bunch of thinking about being nice to the nice) then naturally an 'other' will possibly not experience 'unpleasant mental feeling.' The 'other' may as well, having nothing to do with me. A lot of this stuff is about looking good and feeling good about how one looks. If I want to appear nice just to make others feel good, this may not be kusala. I suspect it's a lot of window-dressing much of the time. Sincerely, Scott. #117810 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:07 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Sure, I don't understand how one can take a phrase: "strive with all your might" and make it mean "DO NOT strive with all your might or you will be just controlling realities and developing Self View". As if one doesn't run a risk at developing self view in daily life. Of course it is very hard to understand how and why should a statement be taken in exact opposite of what it says. Don't hold your breath waiting for a direct answer to this question, since it is obvious that the answer is "yes, Buddha did make direct statements about striving and right effort." But do get ready for more personal attacks and disparaging comments about how emotional, irrational and stupid "we meditators" are. I guess that's one way to deal with the frustration of not getting every dsg member to bow to your will and agree with your philosophy of not doing much of anything to follow the path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117811 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:14 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Rob, > q: what is "practice"? > a: the wholesome consciousnesses, all classes of. > connie It is not my view that practice is a matter of consciousness only. I believe that practice is something that is actually done and developed through the appropriate exercises and activities, such as practicing concentration, calming of breath, body and mind, and practice and development of mindfulness, both in everyday activities and in quiet, undistracted meditation. All of this was directly taught and advocated by the Buddha, unless you interpret the clear statements of the Buddha in sutta to mean something other than what they clearly say. I think we all agree that development on the path is marked by the increase and refinement of the kusala cittas, wholesome consciousnesses. We disagree about how these develop and accumulate, and how the path should be followed. I do agree that by reading, considering and understanding the nature of dhammas, insights can develop in everyday life and one can gain understanding that moves citta forward on the path. That is one of the reasons I'm here, to gain knowledge of how cittas and dhammas operate and how conditionality works in more detail. But I also think that direct application of the Dhamma both to everyday life and in meditation practice is a more direct pathway for bhavana. My view is that a follower of Dhamma should do all three - read and understand Dhamma, apply it to everyday life & everyday activities, and engage in meditation practice to develop mindfulness and samatha in a more concentrated way. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #117812 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:20 am Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Further i wonder if "harsh" speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person, etc. This is just an idea, but I would guess that harsh speech is like killing, in the sense that the underlying intention causes a different degree of completion of action. I don't know what type of citta underlies harsh speech, but I think that like killing the reason the speech is harsh is that the intention is to attack the other person to some extent. If the harsh speech is completed, it both comes as the result of that intention, and, like killing, also has a harsh effect on the other person. But I think the important point for oneself and for kamma, as in killing, is that the intention has been strong enough to result in the harsh action. I am not sure if sarcasm is always "harsh speech." Sometimes it can be playful or questioning of what has been said, or mildly teasing in a way that has not disconnected from the relationship to the other person. At other times it is clearly hostile. I think that can show a different underlying intention. Best, Rob E. == = = = = = = = = #117813 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi again Scott, /---The idea of 'not wanting to cause unpleasant mental feeling' is still only thinking. She didn't say 'not wanting to cause' she said 'not causing' , she meant the citta processes in the other caused by the harsh words. I think in response to pt's wondering whether the effect on the other was involved in "harsh speech" you said it was irrelevant. According to A. Sujin, not, but again her word is not final. Metta, Phil #117814 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:29 am Subject: Possible Corroboration upasaka_howard Hi, all - I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. I have found the following in the Visuddhimagga that possibly expresses the same idea: ___________________ When a fruit arises in a single continuity, it is neither another's nor from other [kamma] because absolute identity and absolute otherness are excluded there. The formative processes of seeds establish the meaning of this. For once the formative processes of a mango seed, etc., have been set afoot, when the particular fruit arises in the continuity of the seed's [growth], later on owing to the obtaining of conditions, it does so neither as the fruit of other seeds nor from other formative processes as condition; and those seeds or formative processes do not themselves pass on to the place where the fruit is. This is the analogy here. And the meaning can also be understood from the fact that the arts, crafts, medicine, etc., learnt in youth give their fruit later on in maturity. .... 173. But it may be said: 'That may be so; but then these formations must be the conditions for the fruit either when they are present or when they are not present, and if it is when they are present, their result must come about only at the moment of their occurrence; but if it is when they are not present, they must bear fruit constantly both before and after their occurrence'. It can be replied: They are conditions when performed; They bear fruit once, but not again; The agent and such similes Will serve to make the meaning plain. 174. Formations are conditions for their own fruit because they have been performed, not because of presence or non-presence, according as it is said: [556] 'Due to profitable kamma of the sense sphere having been performed, stored up [in the past], resultant eye-consciousness arises [in the present]' (Dhs. §431), and so on. Having become conditions for their own fruit according to their capacity, they do not again bear fruit since the result has already ripened. And in explaining the meaning of this the analogy of the agent, etc., should be understood. For just as in the world when someone becomes an agent with the aim of completing some business or other, and he buys goods, say, or obtains a loan, it is simply the fact of his performing the transaction that is the condition for completing that business, not the transaction's actual presence or nonpresence; and after the completion of the business he has no further liability. Why not? Because the business has been completed. ______________________ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117815 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:32 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Rob E and Alex > Don't hold your breath waiting for a direct answer to this question, since it is obvious that the answer is "yes, Buddha did make direct statements about striving and right effort." You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? Short answer, Rob, please! :) And no sutta quotes, Alex, they are meaningless without clear expression of one's understanding of them. Metta, Phil But do get ready for more personal attacks and disparaging comments about how emotional, irrational and stupid "we meditators" are. I guess that's one way to deal with the frustration of not getting every dsg member to bow to your will and agree with your philosophy of not doing much of anything to follow the path. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > #117816 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:51 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again Correction: > > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? change " kusala dhammas must be involved" to "what we call meditation is actually the operation of kusala dhammas." Metta, Phil #117817 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma can be Modified! nichiconn Afraid you've lost me here, Howard! connie > HCW: > Not all phenomena conditioned by kamma are vipaka. There is kammapatha > that "carries out" the kamma. > ------------------------------------------ #117818 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . epsteinrob Hi Nina. Thanks for the quotes. A couple of questions below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > We should not misunderstand the meaning of contemplating the whole > (breathing) body and remember the goal: realizing the three general > characteristics of conditioned dhammas: > > and out-breath body and that material body which is its support. ... > Mindfulness of > the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true > characteristics.> This seems to be saying that one is attending the rupas of both breath and physical body with mindfulness as they arise for citta in attending the breath. So there is at least this aspect of attending the actual rupas for development of mindfulness of their characteristics. Is this correct? > He > contemplates (anupassati): he keeps re-seeing (anu anu passati) with > jhana knowledge and with insight knowledge. Can you help me to understand the nature of "re-seeing" (anu anu passati)and what that means? Also, what is jhana knowledge? I think it is more obvious what insight knowledge is, but one usually speaks of jhana-citta as an expression of samatha, rather than of knowing. I am interested to know how jhana knowledge would be understood. ... the contemplation of > the body as an in-breath-and out-breath body as stated and of the > physical body that is its [material]support, which is not > contemplation of permanence, etc. , in a body whose individual > essence {N: characteristic, sabhaava) is impermanence, etc.... but > which is rather contemplation of its essence [N: characteristic] as > impermanent, painful, not self, and foul, according as is > appropriate, or alternatively, which is contemplation of it as a mere > body only, by not contemplating it as containing anything that can be > apprehended as "I" or "mine" or "woman" or "man" all this is > contemplation of the body. The above aspect of attending the breath seems to be more focused on seeing the general characteristics of the breath as a concept. Am I correct that this part is about contemplating breath as a concept, and the other passage that I quoted above about the "rupas" is contemplating bodily/breath rupas as objects of direct mindfulness? > The mindfulness associated with that > contemplation of the body...is the "development of the > foundation (establishment) of mindfulness consisting in contemplation > of the body"(Pm. 261)>... Not only concentration, > but realizing the three characteristics is the goal. Mindfulness of > the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true > characteristics.> Here it is stated that both concentration and realization of the three characteristics is the goal, through mindfulness of the realities appearhing while breathing... So this seems like direct practice of satipatthana - realizing the characteristics through direct mindfulness of paramatha dhammas, while at the same time direct development of samatha/concentration. Is this correct? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117819 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:41 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Phil, >P:You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating >is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? >Short answer, Rob, please! :) And no sutta quotes, Alex, they are >meaningless without clear expression of one's understanding of them. >====================================================== Not every striving is unwholesome. It is impossible to exist without any kind of intentional action, except maybe if one is insentient log of wood. As you know, viriya/chanda/adhitthana are not unwholesome cetasikas. Self View, is a view. Views is a opinion that you cling to and *add* toward what is happening. The same action can be done with or without wrong views. With best wishes, Alex #117820 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:14 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Connie, Phil, Robert E, all, >Rob, >q: what is "practice"? >a: the wholesome consciousnesses, all classes of. >connie >============================================= Right. But what are the causes for it to arise? When one practices, at that time there is wholesome consciousness. The more one focuses on daily life, the more conscious states arise in line with that. The more one focuses on wholesome action, the more wholesome consciousness states arise. The more one practices to reflect wisely, the more that skill is strengthened, and the more one practices to reflect unwisely the more that unwholesome states of consciousness are strengthened. When one drives a car, it is not a description, it is what one does. Sure one can describe every transistor and every electrical connection that is in a car, but that doesn't help one to drive. If one tries to learn everything about every part of car in order to drive, then one will get old and die before even sitting in one car. Driving manuals focus on driving rather than discussion of where every screw goes. Trying to deny driving by talking about endless study of electronics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, etc, rather than driving is not logically valid. Description of a car is one thing, driving it is another. Driving can be described in terms of millions of physical processes, but description does not equal driving. Do you see this? With best wishes, Alex #117821 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:03 am Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Phil, P: "She didn't say 'not wanting to cause' she said 'not causing' , she meant the citta processes in the other caused by the harsh words. I think in response to pt's wondering whether the effect on the other was involved in 'harsh speech' you said it was irrelevant. According to A. Sujin, not, but again her word is not final." Scott: If you had a fuller quotation that would be good. This is about aayatana, not people. The 'other person' is irrelevant. 'Citta processes' is another term for 'person.' Sincerely, Scott. #117822 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:49 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 All, A: "...But what are the causes for it to arise? When one practices, at that time there is wholesome consciousness..." Scott: Just to point out that the above means: 'Whenever I'm doing it, it is right.' Sincerely, Scott. #117823 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:01 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Scott, > A: "...But what are the causes for it to arise? When one practices, >at that time there is wholesome consciousness..." > >Scott: Just to point out that the above means: 'Whenever I'm doing it, >it is right.' >============================ I have *not* meant that, Scott. You are deliberately putting what I have not said in order to reject what I did say. There can be right or wrong action. It is not either/or. Wrong action develops more wrong results, right actions brings more right result. Again, you have not answered what I've said and, again, tried to attack a person. Please no Ad Hominems, or red herrings. Alex #117824 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:11 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 All, A: "...The more one focuses on wholesome action, the more wholesome consciousness states arise..." Scott: This means that wholesome consciousness arises because one focuses on 'wholesome action.' Wholesome action is not citta, nor any of it's accompanying mental factors. Focus on wholesome action would have to be thinking. Therefore, simply make a wish for it and more wholesome consciousness states arise. Sincerely, Scott. #117825 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:55 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Scott, >A: "...The more one focuses on wholesome action, the more wholesome >consciousness states arise..." > >Scott: This means that wholesome consciousness arises because one >focuses on 'wholesome action.' >============================================ Anapanasati is an example (MN118). Buddha taught and praised it. "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html With best wishes, Alex #117826 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:18 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Scott and Alex, ---------- > S: And sometimes I just tire of the same old thing. I do find it difficult dealing with the brutal repetition of the same message over and over. > I really think I have a good idea in having a meditator be brave enough to actually provide a sample description of his practice ---------- KH: Yes that is a brilliant idea, although not a new one at DSG. I think there is only one thing that all Buddhist meditators have in common, and that is that they have a practice. Those practices vary to such an extraordinary degree there is no thread that unites them, except perhaps the name "Buddhist." Pointing out the absurdity of the situation will not necessarily help, however. In fact one DSG member once proudly proclaimed that it didn't matter what we understood meditation to be, just so long as we mediated. What can you do in the face of that sort of reasoning? --------- <. . .> > S: so we can demonstrate what exactly we think of it by comparing it with the texts. I'm tired of being told that there is an imperative to act over and over, and having the same suttas shoved under my eyes. But that's just me. I think the overall debate has totally stalled. ----- KH: There does seem to be an element of wilful ignorance. I even wonder if some meditators have been brainwashed in the true sense of the word. Does the Thanissaro cult practice brainwashing? I did a quick internet search but didn't find much about it. At the Cult Education Forum there is a thread on The Dangers of Meditation in which Thanissaro gets a mention. There seems to be a consensus that he practices a psychotherapy technique known as NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming). One person there alleges that Thanissaro's audio talks demonstrate a . . halting . . . way of . . . speaking . . called "pacing" that is used in NLP to induce a trance state. So maybe Alex has been got at! That would explain his stubborn insistence that we have not answered his questions. Ken H #117827 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:30 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi KenH, RobertE, all, >KH: Hi Scott and Alex, > > ---------- > > S: And sometimes I just tire of > the same old thing. I do find it difficult dealing with the brutal repetition > of the same message over and over. > > > I really think I have a good idea in having a meditator be brave enough to actually provide a sample description of his practice > ---------- > > KH: Yes that is a brilliant idea, although not a new one at DSG. >======================================== What idea? To get personal with me or Robert whenever you cannot answer plain statements made by the Buddha that contradict your belief of what He taught? As if it was our fault that Buddha clearly taught anapanasati and have said: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html >KH:I think there is only one thing that all Buddhist meditators have >in common, and that is that they have a practice. >================================= Which they try to base on what the Buddha has said in suttas such as MN118. Again this thread was about what the Buddha taught. Not my or Robert's practice which would be a topic for another discussion. On many occasions when I or someone else has shown numerous sutta quotes that refute some opinions expressed here, what happens is that person rather than admit mistake chooses to use ad hominems or use red herring. This just shows lack of answer to clear cut sutta statements. ======================================= Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts - imbued with desire, aversion or delusion - still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "And what, monks, is right effort? "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. ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." [alex: I've removed repetitions] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html ================================================================= With best wishes, Alex #117828 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:10 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Ken H., KH: "...I think there is only one thing that all Buddhist meditators have in common, and that is that they have a practice...Pointing out the absurdity of the situation will not necessarily help..it didn't matter what we understood meditation to be, just so long as we meditated. What can you do in the face of that sort of reasoning?" Scott: I honestly don't know. It *is* impenetrable. And absurd beyond measure. KH: "There does seem to be an element of wilful ignorance. I even wonder if some meditators have been brainwashed in the true sense of the word. Does the Thanissaro cult practice brainwashing?..So maybe Alex has been got at! That would explain his stubborn insistence that we have not answered his questions." Scott: This latter point is a matter of great interest. There is absolutely no possible way any meditator who has read on this list for any amount of time can ever honestly say that the 'question' of whether or not the Buddha gave instructions to 'strive' has not been answered from the point of view of those on this list of the same mind about it. In fact, in recent interactions, it is clear to any discerning reader that the sudden forgetfulness of this oft given answer served a need to deflect the request for evidence of a personal practice. Suddenly it was like, 'you have not answered the question' and all that. No 'practice' description forthcoming. So yeah, brainwashing, cult-induction, something. Do you think it's like able to leak through the ether and get into my eyes through the internet? Sincerely, Scott. #117829 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:13 am Subject: Possible Corroboration nichiconn Hi, All- HCW: I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. c: some more on kamma paccaya: Ch 11 in Nina's "Conditions" http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/conditions/d/doc2911.html Ven Punnobhasa lecture: http://www.wuala.com/nichicon/apbADL1_wmv/Abhid11.wmv/ connie #117830 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:30 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Scott, > Scott: This latter point is a matter of great interest. There is >absolutely no possible way any meditator who has read on this list for >any amount of time can ever honestly say that the 'question' of >whether or not the Buddha gave instructions to 'strive' has not been >answered from the point of view of those on this list of the same mind >about it. >=============== So what do you think the Buddha meant about striving In *many* quotes such as this: Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html Is He saying that we should NOT strive? Does it say that we should NOT have wholesome desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, etc? Is it reasonable to make "...should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities." mean that one should NOT do these? Was Buddha such an incompetent teacher who couldn't phrase what He meant clearly? Was generation of people from Buddha's time till now incompetent for realizing that they should NOT strive because the Buddha has said "...should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities."? Is it reasonable to assume that the Buddha meant totally opposite of what He said in the sutta? With best wishes, Alex #117831 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:21 am Subject: Safe Medicine! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Evaporator of all Evil States of Mind! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and Friends: Once the mental release by infinite Friendliness has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for ill-will to take possession of and obsess the mind, for the mental release by infinite Friendliness is the release from all ill-will! Once the mental release by compassionate Pity & tender understanding has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for violence to take possession of and obsess the mind, for the mental release by compassionate Pity is the release from all violence! Once the mental release by mutual Joy rejoicing in other being's success has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for discontent to take possession of & obsess the mind, for the mental release by mutual Joy is the release from all discontent! Once the mental release by serene, still and imperturbable Equanimity has been developed, frequently practised, firmly established, expanded, made a vehicle, foundation, and brought to full perfection, then it will be impossible for greed & lust to take possession of & obsess the mind, for release by imperturbable Equanimity is the deliverance from all greed! The 4 supreme mental attitudes (Brahmavihâra ) are thus: Friendliness, Pity, Mutual Joy and Equanimity! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #117832 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Possible Corroboration upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - Thank you for the references. What do you wish to point out from them? You made no observations with regard to the material of Buddhaghosa's. Are you relating these refernces to that? In support? In refutation? (BTW, I couldn't get to see the film.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/25/2011 5:14:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi, All- HCW: I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. c: some more on kamma paccaya: Ch 11 in Nina's "Conditions" http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/conditions/d/doc2911.html Ven Punnobhasa lecture: http://www.wuala.com/nichicon/apbADL1_wmv/Abhid11.wmv/ connie #117833 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:05 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Alex, ----------------- <. . .> > A: Again this thread was about what the Buddha taught. Not my or Robert's practice which would be a topic for another discussion. On many occasions when I or someone else has shown numerous sutta quotes that refute some opinions expressed here, what happens is that person rather than admit mistake chooses to use ad hominems or use red herring. This just shows lack of answer to clear cut sutta statements. ------------------ KH: I don't mind going over this however many times you might want to. It is all Dhamma discussion to me, and I like it. The Buddha urged and praised right effort. And he was talking about effort of an extraordinary degree. Massive effort! It was the effort that accompanied right understanding of the Eightfold Path. Another, lesser, degree of effort that the Buddha praised was the effort that accompanied mundane jhana absorption. That too was absolutely massive in comparison to any effort known to us ordinary folk. There was also a kind of effort that the Buddha strongly advised against and criticised. And that was the effort that arose with wrong understanding. Some suttas (e.g., the Ogha Sutta) use the words "striving" and "standing still" to describe that kind of effort. So there are right efforts and wrong efforts, and there are ordinary kusala and akusala efforts that accompany cittas without right or wrong understanding. And there is kiriya effort that accompanies merely functional consciousness. In all cases it is a conditioned dhamma (i.e., it arises purely by conditions). There is effort present now. But you, Alex, will never understand conditioned Dhammas while you remain under the influence of Ven Thanissaro's heterodoxy. He teaches that there is a self, and he claims that the Buddha taught the same. Until you get that out of your head you are wasting your time discussing the finer points of Dhamma study. Ken H #117834 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:41 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi KenH, >KH: In all cases it is a conditioned dhamma (i.e., it arises purely by >conditions). There is effort present now. >=================================== Of course everything is conditioned, I haven't said otherwise. The effort has various degrees. It could be stronger or weaker, more or less appropriate, etc. Re: Venerable Thanissaro: "Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates - form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness - he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. ..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Venerable refutes metaphysical position of there is a "Self". With best wishes, Alex #117835 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Possible Corroboration nichiconn Hi Howard, Sorry you couldn't download/watch the movie (actually, the whole wuala.com/nichicon/apbADL1_wmv/ series). No particular passages in it - or Nina's book - to draw attention to - just think they both support & expand upon the Vism quotes you gave (& also related to our earlier conversation) - in more standard than howardian terms, if i may . So no, I wasn’t making a point or looking to debate anything, just offering additional reference material. connie HCW: I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. #117836 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:16 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? Short answer, Rob, please! :) I would not make the first statement, because I would say that it is right to engage in meditation as part of Dhamma practice, but I would agree that one must develop kusala cittas in order for it to be part of the path, and that one must guard against [with sati as it develops] the accumulation of akusala factors in one's practice. I do not have an all-or-nothing view. I think that when one starts practice, there are going to be many akusala cittas, including akusala cetana, and all of that has to be worked through. How is it worked through? As one practices and develops mindfulness, citta becomes more adept at "guarding against" akusala, and kusala is more likely to be promoted and developed. It's a gradual process, and one cannot start out perfect in order to avoid akusala; that's not how it works, but the meditation process with the right motives will develop more kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna. That's as short as I could get it...! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117837 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:20 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? > change " kusala dhammas must be involved" to "what we call meditation is actually the operation of kusala dhammas." What you say is true, but very general. What kinds of kusala dhammas are involved? How do they operate? How are they developed and accumulated? It is through right intention, based on the understanding of the Dhamma, combined with right effort in developing sati and samatha, that meditation works to develop kusala cittas and kusala cetasikas. This can be done while walking, sitting, standing, lying, etc., but can also be done in a concentrated way through sitting practice. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117838 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:25 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Scott > > Scott: If you had a fuller quotation that would be good. This is about aayatana, not people. The 'other person' is irrelevant. 'Citta processes' is another term for 'person.' Right, the "other person" is irrelevant of course, only citta processes, we all agree on that and when pt wondered whether effect on the other person was an aspect of harshl speech he was (safe assumption) referring to citta processes. It was just a one line quotation, as I quotef. Someone was asking about the kind o of dana I mentionned earler and she said " not causing unpleasant mental feeling ", that's all. If I come across that talk again (a worthy project might be to make a list of topics covered in each talk to make it easier to find them again) I'll post it. I still find your idea expressed before your hiatus that our behaviour doesn't impact others very interesting. Ideas related to Dhamma that fly against common sense often contain the truth. Then again it's possible that that's a concept that you will end up discarding, if you haven't already. Metta, Phil #117839 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:46 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------- > A: Re: Venerable Thanissaro: "Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates - form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness - he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. ..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Venerable refutes metaphysical position of there is a "Self". ------- KH: I see you have thrown the usual smokescreen around the venerable's teaching. But he will not thank you for it. In his writings TB clearly states that anatta is a "not-self strategy." According to this "strategy" the meditator is not allowed to upset himself by thinking of anything as self. This, we are told, is appropriate because, in the conditioned world, consciousness is not fit to be regarded as self. Only after unbinding is consciousness fit to be so regarded. And after unbinding there will be no need to call consciousness anything. Life will be an eternity of skipping and daisy chains. (That last sentence was mine, not TB's.) Ken H #117840 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:58 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, > > KH: I see you have thrown the usual smokescreen around the venerable's teaching. But he will not thank you for it. > > In his writings TB clearly states that anatta is a "not-self >strategy." According to this "strategy" the meditator is not allowed >to upset himself by thinking of anything as self. >========= Right. A meditator should not think as "I, me, mine, this is Self". The teaching of not-Self should be used like raft for crossing the sea. It should not be clung to after it has done its jobs. Buddha taught the path to cessation of all Suffering, not simply another philosophy of which there were dozens in Buddha's time. If Buddha's teaching is simply a philosophy, then I would not follow it. Why? There are plenty of more logical philosophies than His. But only He was able to diagnose the truth of Dukkha, its cause, its cessation and the path toward its cessation. >KH: This, we are told, is appropriate because, in the conditioned >world, consciousness is not fit to be regarded as self. Only after >unbinding is consciousness fit to be so regarded. >================== Ven.TB does not call Nibbana to be the Self. In fact he doesn't believe in Metaphysical Self. With best wishes, Alex #117841 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:13 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Alex, I wish you would say what you mean rather than put up smokescreens. -------- <. . .> > A: Right. A meditator should not think as "I, me, mine, this is Self". > The teaching of not-Self should be used like raft for crossing the sea. It should not be clung to after it has done its jobs. ------- KH: In other words, anatta is "just a device." That is what you are saying, isn't it? Both you and Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe the true self crosses the sea and reaches the final shore. In "Anatta the Not-self Strategy" TB writes: "The raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there -- free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced." KH: You know he says that (we have had this conversation many times) and yet you prefer not to admit it. Why is that? ---------------------------- > A: Buddha taught the path to cessation of all Suffering, not simply another philosophy of which there were dozens in Buddha's time. If Buddha's teaching is simply a philosophy, then I would not follow it. Why? There are plenty of more logical philosophies than His. But only He was able to diagnose the truth of Dukkha, its cause, its cessation and the path toward its cessation. ---------------------------- KH: Please give an example of a "more logical philosophy." ------------------------------------ <. . .> > A: Ven.TB does not call Nibbana to be the Self. In fact he doesn't believe in Metaphysical Self. ------------------------------- KH: Here's another quote from the venerable: "In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?" KH: So what are you telling us? Are you saying TB doesn't believe in a self but he doesn't *disbelieve* in it either? And what did you mean when you wrote recently: ____________ >> A: "165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html >> A: So much for there being no "i" in empirical and conditioned sense. --------- KH: ? Ken H #117842 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:23 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil, and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi again Scott, > > /---The idea of 'not wanting to cause unpleasant mental feeling' is still only thinking. > > She didn't say 'not wanting to cause' she said 'not causing' , she meant the citta processes in the other caused by the harsh words. I think in response to pt's wondering whether the effect on the other was involved in "harsh speech" you said it was irrelevant. According to A. Sujin, not, but again her word is not final. There has been a sometimes-ongoing discussion as to whether each individual is represented -- non-conventionally -- by a "separate stream" of paramatha dhammas, or whether there is no such thing as separate individuals at all, even in terms of citta. Ken H.'s view is that there is "just a single citta" and there is no such thing as streams of cittas that correspond to an individual. It seems from what you have said that this is contrary to K. Sujin's view, and that she accepts the idea of groups or streams of individual cittas corresponding to separate individuals. This would also be in accord with Buddha's many pronouncements that each individual is subject to his/her own kamma, individually. If there are "citta processes" that represent each individual, then the actions that "I" take can affect the "citta processes" that represent the other individual. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117843 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:28 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > And what did you mean when you wrote recently: > ____________ > >> A: "165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left > undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no > one can purify another. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html > > > >> A: So much for there being no "i" in empirical and conditioned sense. > --------- Ken, Alex didn't write that, he quoted it. Those are the words of the Buddha in the Attavagga Sutta. Are you saying that the *Buddha* is promoting self-view in this sutta...? The following translation is not from Thanissaro, but from Acharya Buddharakkhita: 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another. 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117844 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Possible Corroboration upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 9/25/2011 7:03:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi Howard, Sorry you couldn't download/watch the movie (actually, the whole wuala.com/nichicon/apbADL1_wmv/ series). No particular passages in it - or Nina's book - to draw attention to - just think they both support & expand upon the Vism quotes you gave (& also related to our earlier conversation) - in more standard than howardian terms, if i may . So no, I wasn’t making a point or looking to debate anything, just offering additional reference material. connie ============================== Okay, thanks. That's what I thought, but I wondered whether there might be more that I was be missing. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117845 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:44 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: In other words, anatta is "just a device." >====================================== It is a device like the entire teaching is a device for cessation of all dukkha. I prefer to use term "a raft". One uses "a raft to cross over the ocean of samsara". > Both you and Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe the true self crosses the >sea and reaches the final shore. >====================== No. It is just suffering that ceases and nothing can ever rearise after parinibbana. > In "Anatta the Not-self Strategy" >TB writes: > > "The raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there -- free > to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced." >=========== There isn't anything to be traced when all aggregates have ceased. >KH: Please give an example of a "more logical philosophy." >============ There were many smart philosophers (various Greek and modern ones) who talked about the nature of the world. But it was the Buddha who taught us the path to end all dukkha. The arguments in the suttas are simply to basic to be taken as serious philosophy, except that they have a very good pragmatic value, they are instructions to be used to make dukkha cease. > KH: Here's another quote from the venerable: > > "In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, > but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its > cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. >============================== Anatta as entire teaching is not supposed to be frozen philosophy, it is a way out of suffering. Anatta needs to be used to let go of all clinging. It should not be clung to as "The Right Doctrine". >KH: So what are you telling us? Are you saying TB doesn't believe >in a self but he doesn't *disbelieve* in it either? >================================================= We need to follow the path rather than to grasp at concepts and not do anything. >And what did you mean when you wrote recently: > ___________ > >> A: "165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By >oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and >impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html >======================= That statement denies nihilistic metaphysics where nothing can be done. Actions do matter, and empirically there is someone who does. With best wishes, Alex #117846 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------------- <. . .> >> KH: And what did you mean when you wrote recently: > ____________ > >> A: "165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left > undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no > one can purify another. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html > > > >> A: So much for there being no "i" in empirical and conditioned sense. > > RE: Ken, Alex didn't write that, he quoted it. ------------------- KH: Let me help you out here. Alex quoted the first part and gave a reference for it. Then he said: "So much for there being no "i" in empirical and conditioned sense." In other words, Alex understands the suttas to be teaching atta belief. ------------------------------ > RE: Those are the words of the Buddha in the Attavagga Sutta. Are you saying that the *Buddha* is promoting self-view in this sutta...? ----------------------------- KH: You and Alex make a great team. I feel like I am in a mad house. Why are you doing this to me!!! :-) -------------------------------------------------- > RE: The following translation is not from Thanissaro, but from Acharya Buddharakkhita: 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another. 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good. ----------------------------------------------- KH: Thanks for the sutta quote: with the extra stanza it is especially interesting. If you could stop tilting at windmills for one second we could have a good discussion about that. Ken H #117847 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Phil, Op 25-sep-2011, om 16:54 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Not that her word is almighty, I heard A. Sujin talking about the > form of dana that is offering freedom from fear (by not responding > to dosa in a harsh way) and she said that it comes down to "not > causing unpleasant mental feeling." When I heard it I thought of > you because I always remember your expressing a belief that our > behaviour could not impact others. ------ N: Offering freedom from fear: again, it is the metta citta that matters, the good intention of well wishing. We have the good intention of not causing unpleasantness to others, don't we? ------- Nina. #117848 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Possible Corroboration nilovg Hi Howard, Op 25-sep-2011, om 17:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE > for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. I have > found > the following in the Visuddhimagga that possibly expresses the same > idea: ------- N: The quote is good but I am thinking what you are underlining. Not every kamma produces result; there are many complicated other factors that determine the production of result. Or other kammas may obstruct the production of result. IT is hard to pinpoint anything, and it is said that kamma and vipaaka is the field of the Buddhas. -------- Nina. #117849 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:10 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Rob E (Nina, Scott) > There has been a sometimes-ongoing discussion as to whether each individual is represented -- non-conventionally -- by a "separate stream" of paramatha dhammas, or whether there is no such thing as separate individuals at all, even in terms of citta Ph: It sounds like one of those poisoned arrow topics, irrelevant to the task at hand. > Ken H.'s view is that there is "just a single citta" and there is no such thing as streams of cittas that correspond to an individual. It seems from what you have said that this is contrary to K. Sujin's view, and that she accepts the idea of groups or streams of individual cittas corresponding to separate individuals. This would also be in accord with Buddha's many pronouncements that each individual is subject to his/her own kamma, individually. Ph: No, she wouldn't talk about this topic at length. One sentence, avoid causing unpleasant feelings. Enough said. If anyone wamted to talk about the topic of seperate entities, they wouldn't get far, she always brings it back to the moment. Ken might go too far by saying tgere us just one citta. But it's true that only the present dhamma is of importance. If we develop understanding, our treatment of other people will work out on its own. But yes, in sone real way our behaviour impacts on others. Enough said. No need to get wrapped up even tighter in layers of thinking and theorizing exactly how. We could die today. Back to the present monent. :) Metta, Phil #117850 From: Vince Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. cerovzt@... HI connie you wrote: > connie: Hm... just thinking that the little pool of blood is a conventional > expression reflecting jivitindriya & it's not so much, with mentality, a > matter of "where" as "how"... how clear is that pool? in fact I think the Nina reminder is right. There is a distance with science today unavoidable, because nama and rupa finally are not objects. Science only can verify individual entities. Cetasika jivitindriya is a function arising with a citta. When science says "neutrinos" or "magnetism", finally we consider only nama and rupa. I suppose what we name nama and rupa, in Science they would be a problem for the nature of knowledge, a philosophical issue. In example, this week Science says there is something speeder than light. However, when we consider there is only seeing, nama and rupa, and finally without individual entities, then this would be not a new problem but delusion on atta. ** btw, the speed of new messages entering in this list is astonishing. Sometimes I ignore if I'm missing some answers in the threads. I'm sorry in that case :( best, Vince. #117851 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:25 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Rob E (and Alex) Thanks for the concise answers! > > > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? > > > change " kusala dhammas must be involved" to "what we call meditation is actually the operation of kusala dhammas." > > What you say is true, but very general. What kinds of kusala dhammas are involved? How do they operate? How are they developed and accumulated? Ph: Exactly! I guess where we differ is that you think the above can be understood just by reading suttas. I used to think so, and who knows, maybe I will again in the future. But now it seems almost inconceivable that your excellent questions above could be understood without Abhidhamma and commentaries, because we would be on our own, just forging ahead in ignorance. Rob E: It is through right intention, based on the understanding of the Dhamma, combined with right effort in developing sati and samatha, that meditation works to develop kusala cittas and kusala cetasikas. This can be done while walking, sitting, standing, lying, etc., but can also be done in a concentrated way through sitting practice. Ph: Sorry, the above is pretty much meaningless without understanding of dhammas. Where does understanding of dhammas come from? Just from reading suttas? I can't understand that. Does it magically emerge out of watching conventional activities such as walking, sitting, standing, breathing. Can't understand that either. And your other post: Rob E: I would not make the first statement because I would say that it is right to engage in meditation as part of Dhamma practice, but I would agree that one must develop kusala cittas in order for it to be part of the path, and that one must guard against [with sati as it develops] the accumulation of akusala factors in one's practice. I do not have an all-or-nothing view. I think that when one starts practice, there are going to be many akusala cittas, including akusala cetana, and all of that has to be worked through. How is it worked through? As one practices and develops mindfulness, citta becomes more adept at "guarding against" akusala, and kusala is more likely to be promoted and developed. It's a gradual process, and one cannot start out perfect in order to avoid akusala; that's not how it works, but the meditation process with the right motives will develop more kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna. Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just doesn't make sense to me. It might seem paradoxical in a "we must start where we are, not where we want to be"-defying way, but the idea of moments of detachment from the beginning, I believe in that now. Those moments of detachment cannot as far as I can see arise conditioned by attachment. I used to believe that the attachment that is bound to be all over intentional meditation practice could somehow condition the arising of kusala by creating a kind of shelter (through developed sila) within which kusala would have better conditions to develop, but for now at least I can't see that at all. I think Scott's challenge, albeit offered in a rather obnoxious tone, is fair and good. You and Alex keep repeating the same thing in sutta terms, but unless you can explain, through your experience, exactly how all the akusala gives way to kusala, they are just empty words, I think. As far as Dhamma discussion goes, that is. The things you write here may have real meaning for you, but unless there is a kind of leap of substance, what good does it do to keep repeating "the Buddha said.." followed by words cut and pasted (either literally or by paraphrasing) from suttas. I just don't get that anymore! If you can't explain based on experience, and are simply acting as advocates for a kind of practice you yourselves don't have, is this the place to be doing that? Wouldn't it be better to use your time at DSG to drop the meditation talk and focus for awhile on things you can't learn about and discuss anywhere else on the internet. You can write about meditation until the cows come home at places like Dhammawheel.... ALex, I guess I will take the liberty of using this post to respond to you as well. You have said that because of health issues you can't meditate. So why do you feel the need to act as advocate for meditation. And why here? I don't get it, really. Are you concerned that the number of people who listen to A. Sujin will suddenly skyrocket and we'll take over the Dhamma world? You know there's no chance of that happening. So why not just drop it. Insult to the Buddha? As I used to say to James, there are a lot of really gross offenders in that department here in Japan, why don't you go after Soka Gakkai or something! Metta, Phil p.s I have to smile at the unpredictability of this all, if you do a search under "dojo yaburi" I bet there are a lot of posts by me railing against people for interfering with people who just wanted to discuss Dhamma in the tradition that this group was founded, etc. And then I joined the bashers. And here I am again! p.p.s yet again I'll try an over and out on this topic. Please think about accepting Scott's offer. He has not need to answer your own challenge about didn't the BUddha say this and that, as he said it has been answered so many times by so many people. #117852 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:42 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Phil, P: "Right, the other person' is irrelevant of course, only citta processes..." Scott: Not 'citta processes' either. The other is irrelevant. This is a concept that is a function of thinking - a content of thought. If you remember the way in which you find yourself effected by thoughts of the other, then you can imagine that this is how you effect the other. Note this is all a function of thinking. The effect is real - the dhammas which arise and fall away and are available to your experience - but the other and how you effect him or her is your concept. The other is visible object, sound, etc. A dhamma such as metta or dosa will arise, due to conditions. Can thoughts of the other (concepts) be condition for metta or dosa to arise? Can you think certain thoughts 'on purpose' and cause metta or dosa to arise thereby? Sincerely, Scott. #117853 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Nina, N: "...We have the good intention of not causing unpleasantness to others, don't we?" Scott: This might be misconstrued. What is meant by 'good intention?' Do you refer to thoughts about not causing unpleasantness? Do these always lead to metta? Do these cause 'pleasantness in others' automatically? Sincerely, Scott #117854 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:54 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Howdy doo, Scott > P: "Right, the other person' is irrelevant of course, only citta processes..." > > Scott: Not 'citta processes' either. The other is irrelevant. This is a concept that is a function of thinking - a content of thought. If you remember the way in which you find yourself effected by thoughts of the other, then you can imagine that this is how you effect the other. Ph: But you're talking about the concept of a person, I was thinking about tge concept (as it must be here) of dhammas operating. The vipaka of harsh sound arises, conditioning bodily consciousness with unpleasant feeling as well as hearing consciousness with neutral feeling, at different moments (if I understand correctly) This conditions the second dart of unpkeasant mental feeling. This is the unpleasant feeling A Sujin spoke of being avoided ( not thought of being avoided, or wanted to be avoided, just the fact of it not arising) when that vipaka did not arise. But the akusala kamma that is our harsh speech conditioning or not conditioning the vipaka of another person doesn't make sense. Not worth trying to figure out as I was writing to RobE, so I'm happy to settle for irrelevant. --Note this is all a function of thinking. The effect is real - the dhammas which arise and fall away and are available to your experience - but the other and how you effect him or her is your concept. Ph: Right, I was thinking about the effect in paramattha dhamma terms, but could only go so far. . > The other is visible object, sound, etc. Ph: Quite often recently I hear reminders similar to these: without paramattha dhammas, there cannot be nimitta; without visible object etc, there cannot be concept. > A dhamma such as metta or dosa will arise, due to conditions. Can thoughts of the other (concepts) be condition for metta or dosa to arise? Ph: Of course. (let me know if you think othwrwise.) > Can you think certain thoughts 'on purpose' and cause metta or dosa to arise thereby? Ph: No. I'll leave it there. Metta, Phil due to conditions. Can thoughts of the other (concepts) be condition for metta or dosa to arise? Can you think certain thoughts 'on purpose' and cause metta or dosa to arise thereby? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #117855 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:54 am Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "But you're talking about the concept of a person, I was thinking about the concept (as it must be here) of dhammas operating. The vipaka of harsh sound arises, conditioning bodily consciousness with unpleasant feeling as well as hearing consciousness with neutral feeling, at different moments (if I understand correctly)..." Scott: This is why thoughts of person confuse things. Someone else's vipaka is a function of past kamma that arose in that particular 'stream' (don't take this term too far). As far as 'the other person' or 'you' are concerned in this conceptual stage play, it is only harsh sound. Thinking and sa~n~na, etc. always give rise to thoughts of an other. All conditioned dhammas function in the same way no matter 'where' they arise. They are not-self. There is no 'other' arising anywhere in any given moment of consciousness. Sincerely, Scott. #117856 From: "connie" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nichiconn hi Vince, > In example, this week Science says there is something speeder than light. Citta! No physical tools can measure that, ever. > > ** btw, the speed of new messages entering in this list is astonishing. > Sometimes I ignore if I'm missing some answers in the threads. > I'm sorry in that case :( > No problem. No need to answer. connie #117857 From: "connie" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nichiconn hi Phil, Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just doesn't make sense to me. Nyanatiloka: anything past or future, material or mental, real or imaginary, wholesome or unwholesome may, if taken as an object of reflection, become a decisive support, or an inducement, for the arising of various thoughts and activities which, on their part, may be wholesome or unwholesome according to the nature of the reflection which is the conditioning factor. c: now That's meditation! > why don't you go after Soka Gakkai or something! > c: now that's funny! connie #117858 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:57 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex, Sarah, Jon, Nina, Scott, Ken H., and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Connie, Phil, Robert E, all, > > >Rob, > >q: what is "practice"? > >a: the wholesome consciousnesses, all classes of. > >connie > >============================================= > > Right. But what are the causes for it to arise? When one practices, at that time there is wholesome consciousness. The more one focuses on daily life, the more conscious states arise in line with that. The more one focuses on wholesome action, the more wholesome consciousness states arise. The more one practices to reflect wisely, the more that skill is strengthened, and the more one practices to reflect unwisely the more that unwholesome states of consciousness are strengthened. There are two really antithetical views here - one is what you say above. You describe very well the point of view that you and I share, that practice actually promotes the development of skillful and kusala states. The more you "focus" on the development of mindfulness and other kusala factors, the more they develop. The opposite view is the one held by those of this particular school of "dhammas only," which is that such a purposeful focusing promotes self-view and akusasla states, rather than promoting and developing teh enlightenment factors. They would say "The more you focus, the more you develop the wrong view that *you* can increase kusala by *you* focusing, and that gives you the idea of a self that has control over the path, and that can make enlightenment happen by your self-based will. Their view is on the opposite extreme, that only by noticing naturally the natural arising of kusala states and learning through this unforced process what is kusala and what is not, can more kusala develop and can one gradually accumulate greater degrees of mindfulness, insight and panna. It is a very "hands-off" approach, so that "self" never has a chance to get its hands on the process and spoil, whereas the "meditators/practicers" approach is very hands-on, and believes that by practicing diligently self-view and other akusala factors are overcome. The question to me is, What did the Buddha teach? If one reads the suttas, and takes them at their word, the Buddha clearly taught the latter view - that one should purposely work on the enlightenment factors to develop them through diligent practice, just as someone who wanted to be a concert violinist would practice the violin for 4 hours a day and would never think for a moment that they would ever be able to play well if they *didn't* practice. This is what the Buddha teaches, describes and urges over and over again in sutta. The other view is that the suttas are "conventional speech" and are not to be taken literally, but that the Buddha gave the "real teachings" in the Abhidhamma, which he mystically delivered to those with "but a little dust in their eyes" in the arupa planes, and which was then delivered to his disciples on earth to teach in a more gradual manner. In this view, the Abhidhamma leads with its description of paramatha dhammas, and the commentaries an sub-commentaries explain how the whole thing hangs together. One can then read the suttas as a gross or general way of setting up the discussion of the paramatha dhammas in conventional terms. But that is all based on the mystical notion that the Abhidhamma is the real teaching for those capable of following the Noble Path, and that those who rely on the literal word of the suttas will never reach enlightenment. There will not be agreement on this. The two views are based on two very different belief systems as to what is the real Dhamma, what are the real Teachings, and who is the real Buddha. - - - - - - - - - > When one drives a car, it is not a description, it is what one does. > > Sure one can describe every transistor and every electrical connection that is in a car, but that doesn't help one to drive. The view I have described above of "dhammas only" does not believe that cars, transistors, or drivers actually exist. They are seen to be three-dimensional-seeming holographic hallucinations. You have to understand that Ken H., Scott and many others actually believe that the people and things that we see and work with every day are not actually there. They are nimittas, images, that seem real, that citta has woven together from the raw experiences of visible, tactile, aural and mental rupas. Those rupas do not represent whole objects - they are woven into the apparency of whole objects by the mind. On the way to enlightenment, one begins to see that those objects do not exist and that the real objects are just momentary sensations and colors, so ephemeral that when one truly sees them, one loses the desire to grasp them. One sees directly that they are anatta, anicca and dukkha, and stops clinging to them. When that process is complete, citta stops grasping onto any experience, and ceases to arise at all. That is parinibbana from the dhammas-only point of view. No more craving = no more cittas. You can understand that from this point of view, meditation only strengthens the illusion that the body exists, that the person exists as a conventional organism with mind, body and personality, and that this imaginary person can sit and focus and cause enlightenment factors to develop *for this illusory being.* That captures one squarely in the round of continued self-view and promotes more illusory behavior and imaginings, more clingings and cravings that produce more nimittas of false beings and objects. I believe this description accurately portrays the views of Sarah, Jon and Nina as well, though they show more flexibility towards conventional experience than Scott or Ken H., but I am ready to be corrected if I have not stated it accurately. My point of view is that the conventional self and conventional objects are vehicles of the path, and that one sees their reality more clearly and they start to break down [into a more accurate view of namas and rupas] as one focuses, strives and develops the enlightenment factors through everyday life application and organized meditation. It's a very different view of the "illusory" self and how it should be treated and utilized to develop the path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117859 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:00 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > RE: The following translation is not from Thanissaro, but from Acharya > Buddharakkhita: > > 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left > undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no > one can purify another. > > 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however > great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good. > ----------------------------------------------- > > KH: Thanks for the sutta quote: with the extra stanza it is especially interesting. > > If you could stop tilting at windmills for one second we could have a good discussion about that. Well for God's sake, Ken H., let's stop talking about talking about it, and talk about it. Let's discuss those stanzas and what the Buddha is saying here. Who cares about Alex anyway? :-) [Just kidding.] Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117860 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:02 am Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > But yes, in sone real way our behaviour impacts on others. Enough said. No need to get wrapped up even tighter in layers of thinking and theorizing exactly how. We could die today. Back to the present monent. :) Fair enough. I'll let Ken H. sort out whether he has his own cittas or not. :-) Best, Rob E. #117861 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:30 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. This is long by necessity, but please bear with me for this one post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E (and Alex) > > Thanks for the concise answers! > > > > > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? > > > > > change " kusala dhammas must be involved" to "what we call meditation is actually the operation of kusala dhammas." > > > > What you say is true, but very general. What kinds of kusala dhammas are involved? How do they operate? How are they developed and accumulated? > > Ph: Exactly! I guess where we differ is that you think the above can be understood just by reading suttas. Me? No, I don't think that. I think the above can only be understood by practicing mindfulness and wise reflection in everyday life and by meditating to see namas and rupas more clearly. I don't believe the path will every develop fully by itself without Right Intention and Right Effort. In other words, the above cannot be understood by reading only, period. > I used to think so, and who knows, maybe I will again in the future. But now it seems almost inconceivable that your excellent questions above could be understood without Abhidhamma and commentaries, because we would be on our own, just forging ahead in ignorance. I am very interested in the detailed explanations of the Visudhimagga, ancient commentaries on suttas, Abhidhamma and commentaries and sub-commentaries. I am just also aware and cautious of the fact that they are not the words of the Buddha. I am not someone who believes, without historical evidence, that the Abhidhamma was delivered by the Buddha in the arupa planes. This is not stated anywhere in sutta, and so we have to believe later commentators for that as well. So to me it is important to always go *back* to the suttas, to see if other commentaries are explaining them or contradicting them. While I value their great analysis, I see some commentaries having their own agenda, which seems very academic at times and "dry-insight" oriented, whereas much of Buddha's own teaching in sutta and vinaya is action-oriented and meditation-oriented. If I have to make a choice, I go with the suttas, but I don't reject the wisdom that can be shed by commentaries and especially the brilliance of the Abhidhamma. Most Buddhists around the world combine practice and following sutta and vinaya instructions with Abhidhamma study to get a deeper view. The rejection of the literal suttas is what disturbs me, not the inclusion of the Abhidhamma. > Rob E: It is through right intention, based on the understanding of the Dhamma, combined with right effort in developing sati and samatha, that meditation works to develop kusala cittas and kusala cetasikas. This can be done while walking, sitting, standing, lying, etc., but can also be done in a concentrated way through sitting practice. > > Ph: Sorry, the above is pretty much meaningless without understanding of dhammas. Where does understanding of dhammas come from? Just from reading suttas? I can't understand that. No it comes from closer seeing of them in practice, as well as reading sutta and other scriptural and doctrinal material. I am not sutta-only. I am sutta + practice + commentaries. > Does it magically emerge out of watching conventional activities such as walking, sitting, standing, breathing. Can't understand that either. Neither does it magically appear through great intellectual understanding of conditionality and the nature of cittas and cetasikss on paper. Practice and application is necessary *as well as* understanding/pariyatti. I like pt's approach if you have seen any of our discussion of how he applies dhamma theory to his everyday-life situations. I thought that was pretty cool. > And your other post: > > Rob E: I would not make the first statement because I would say that it is right to > engage in meditation as part of Dhamma practice, but I would agree that one must > develop kusala cittas in order for it to be part of the path, and that one must > guard against [with sati as it develops] the accumulation of akusala factors in > one's practice. > > I do not have an all-or-nothing view. I think that when one starts practice, > there are going to be many akusala cittas, including akusala cetana, and all of > that has to be worked through. How is it worked through? As one practices and > develops mindfulness, citta becomes more adept at "guarding against" akusala, > and kusala is more likely to be promoted and developed. It's a gradual process, > and one cannot start out perfect in order to avoid akusala; that's not how it > works, but the meditation process with the right motives will develop more > kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna. > > Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just doesn't make sense to me. There are already kusala moments every minute, as well as akusala ones. Through correct practice, the akusala is seen more clearly, and the kusala is seen and developed, gradually, along with study and pariyatti understanding. > It might seem paradoxical in a "we must start where we are, not where we want to be"-defying way, but the idea of moments of detachment from the beginning, I believe in that now. Those moments of detachment cannot as far as I can see arise conditioned by attachment. Can they arise from academic understanding without application? In my view, Phil, you got a lot more out of the understanding of dhammas when you contemplated and closely inspected your reactions to being attracted to a woman and how you dealt with that, than when you just try to look at "what is a dhamma" on paper. Both together develop real understanding of what is happening in the actual moment, which is where the real development takes place. > I used to believe that the attachment that is bound to be all over intentional meditation practice could somehow condition the arising of kusala by creating a kind of shelter (through developed sila) within which kusala would have better conditions to develop, but for now at least I can't see that at all. Well "guarding the senses" and the "memory and discernment" qualities of sati are real, and can be developed. But I'm not dismissing understanding of dhammas either. It's not either/or to me, but both. > I think Scott's challenge, albeit offered in a rather obnoxious tone, is fair and good. You and Alex keep repeating the same thing in sutta terms, but unless you can explain, through your experience, exactly how all the akusala gives way to kusala, they are just empty words, I think. I would talk about that with you any time, and with many here, but I'm not going to get into details of practice in a hostile environment where the purpose is to set them up and knock them down. There's no reason to expect that any description of meditation practice would get a fair hearing or a real discussion in the current thread, with Scott and others just waiting to massacre the meditators. Forget it. If things come to a place in the discussion where that is warranted, I would exchange practice notes, as I started to do with pt. His description of pariyatti *was* a description of how he practices and I thought it was great and very real. In a discussion like that I'll be happy to look at the elements of practice, including my own. But not like, "here's Rob's diary: "Today I had a powerful insight experience as I focused on the breath; it was a wonderful relaxing, mystical moment" or whatever. That's what some people are expecting, or what they'd like to reduce it to, so they can call it New Age Delusory Self-Based Practice. I'm not up for that. As far as Dhamma discussion goes, that is. The things you write here may have real meaning for you, but unless there is a kind of leap of substance, what good does it do to keep repeating "the Buddha said.." followed by words cut and pasted (either literally or by paraphrasing) from suttas. I just don't get that anymore! I'd just like to establish that the Buddha clearly promoted purposeful development of sati and samatha, and that he advocated and taught meditation. Yes, it's redundant and annoying, but that's because I can't get an acknowledgment that he said what he said. Instead I get blanket denials of the actual words that Buddha taught, and you can't have a conversation based on denial with no acknowledgment of the reality of the teachings. Could you? If someone said "there is no such thing as a dhamma, only conventional objects," could you then go on to discuss anything sensibly based on that? Well I can't either. It's like trying to get someone to acknowledge that x = x, and we can't even get that! > If you can't explain based on experience, and are simply acting as advocates for a kind of practice you yourselves don't have, is this the place to be doing that? Wouldn't it be better to use your time at DSG to drop the meditation talk and focus for awhile on things you can't learn about and discuss anywhere else on the internet. You can write about meditation until the cows come home at places like Dhammawheel.... If you ever take a quick survey of my posts on any given day, as I suggested to Scott as well, you will see that I am talking to Sarah, Nina and Howard about paramatha dhammas every day of the week! I'm full into getting a stronger understanding of how dhammas and conditionality operate and developing pariyatti in detail. When Nina gave me a sub-commentary on anapansati yesterday that talked about the discernment of the rupas of the breath and body just yesterday, I ate it up like it was chocolate - I love the stuff that really goes into details about how namas and rupas operate. But this topic is important also - it's about *what the path is and how to develop it.* Sorry that I can't just drop that, because it's critical to everything else. > > p.p.s yet again I'll try an over and out on this topic. Please think about accepting Scott's offer. He has not need to answer your own challenge about didn't the BUddha say this and that, as he said it has been answered so many times by so many people. It hasn't been answered, just avoided or reinterpreted into something else, over and over again. And as far as I'm concerned, saying "it's been answered before" is just a lame excuse not to deal with a direct question that totally challenges what he is saying. He is wise to have cut out of the discussion, and leave me alone, because he can't make his case on the merits. To divert this question of *what did the Buddha actually teach* to *let's dissect and critique your personal meditation practice* is an ad hominem diversionary tactic that avoids the issue, and I'm not going to jump through that burning hoop for Grand Inquisitor Scott. Seriously, it offends me. If you want to have a friendly discussion of what you and I both consider *right practice* and how we apply it in our own lives and practices, I'll be happy to do that on that basis immediately, or any time, in a new thread. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #117862 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:06 am Subject: On effort quotes truth_aerator Hello Phil, Scott, KenH, >P:You and Alex keep repeating the same thing in sutta terms, but >unless you can explain, through your experience, exactly how all the >akusala gives way to kusala, they are just empty words, I think. >================================ When it comes to those effort quotes, they are specifically posted to show what the Buddha has said on the issue of Effort. They are not meant to explain the nuts & bolts of meditation, just that specific aspect of discussion. I believe we should discuss one issue per thread. The issue was whether the Buddha advocated effort or not. The talk about mine, or Robert's meditation should be in another thread and the two issues should not be mixed, especially when it seems like this mixing is done deliberately to avoid answering the point that Buddha tried to tell us. I also don't really like when someone gets personal rather than discuss what the Buddha said in the suttas. It sounds like evasion and Ad Hominem. As for detailed explanations of effort, it is a topic for a new thread. With best wishes, Alex #117863 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:15 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: Let me help you out here. Alex quoted the first part and gave a >reference for it. Then he said: "So much for there being no "i" in >empirical and conditioned sense." > >In other words, Alex understands the suttas to be teaching atta belief. >======================================================= Please note that I've put "i" in quotation marks and lower case. I do not believe or imply in metaphysical atta, and I've did talk only about emperical and conditioned experience. No metaphysics. With best wishes, Alex #117864 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:46 am Subject: Re: On effort quotes scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...The talk about mine, or Robert's meditation should be in another thread...As for detailed explanations of effort, it is a topic for a new thread." Scott: Please start one then. Sincerely, Scott. #117865 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Possible Corroboration upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/26/2011 3:15:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 25-sep-2011, om 17:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I have often talked of kamma serving as condition RIGHT THEN AND THERE > for future vipaka - a sort of action-at-a-temporal-distance. I have > found > the following in the Visuddhimagga that possibly expresses the same > idea: ------- N: The quote is good but I am thinking what you are underlining. Not every kamma produces result; there are many complicated other factors that determine the production of result. ------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I understand that. ---------------------------------------- Or other kammas may obstruct the production of result. --------------------------------------- HCW: Certainly. --------------------------------------- IT is hard to pinpoint anything, and it is said that kamma and vipaaka is the field of the Buddhas. ---------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, the tracing of it. --------------------------------------- -------- Nina. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117866 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: present moment, was: A few issues nilovg Dear Phil, well said. Nina. Op 26-sep-2011, om 10:10 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But yes, in sone real way our behaviour impacts on others. Enough > said. No need to get wrapped up even tighter in layers of thinking > and theorizing exactly how. We could die today. Back to the present > monent. :) #117867 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 26-sep-2011, om 11:00 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > In example, this week Science says there is something speeder than > light. > However, when we consider there is only seeing, nama and rupa, and > finally > without individual entities, then this would be not a new problem > but delusion > on atta. ------ N:Yes, I read that too. There is only the present moment. We do not worry. > > --------- > ** btw, the speed of new messages entering in this list is > astonishing. > Sometimes I ignore if I'm missing some answers in the threads. > I'm sorry in that case :( ------ N: Also my fault, due to lack of time. I put many in my concept file, and hope to find time later. Nina. #117868 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Phil, Op 26-sep-2011, om 12:25 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and > no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just > doesn't make sense to me. ----- N: Yes, by natural decisive support-condition, this is very wide. One performs akusala and then gets afraid of an unhappy rebirth and turns to kusala. Nina. #117869 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Scott, Op 26-sep-2011, om 15:51 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > N: "...We have the good intention of not causing unpleasantness to > others, don't we?" > > Scott: This might be misconstrued. What is meant by 'good > intention?' Do you refer to thoughts about not causing > unpleasantness? Do these always lead to metta? ------- N: Kusala cetanaa accompanying kusala citta. Thoughts of helping, giving, being concerned about someone else's wellfare. Just doing these things. Not so much thinking: I should not cause unpleasantness. The Thais are a wonderful example: not thinking all the time, but just quick to kusala action, quick to see where help is needed. I like the sobhana cetasikas of the six pairs needed for all kusala: wieldiness, lightness (makes one alert and quick to act), pliancy, proficiency. They do their work. ------ > S:Do these cause 'pleasantness in others' automatically? ----- N: I would not know and I do not worry about that. I think that we should worry less. ------ Nina. #117870 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:00 am Subject: Re: On effort quotes truth_aerator Hello Scott, KenH, all, >Scott: Please start one then. Lets finish this discussion first. Do you accept Buddha's imperative for us to actively develop right effort? Without accepting such clear cut statements by the Buddha, there will be no point in going further. With best wishes, Alex #117871 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "Kusala cetanaa accompanying kusala citta. Thoughts of helping, giving, being concerned about someone else's welfare. Just doing these things...I like the sobhana cetasikas of the six pairs needed for all kusala: wieldiness, lightness (makes one alert and quick to act), pliancy, proficiency. They do their work" Scott: So just kusala dhammas and the sort of thinking that goes along naturally with their arising. N: "...I think that we should worry less." Scott: Me too but thinking that doesn't always make it so. I know you know this too; others may not and we write for others too. Their is no worry when the sobhana cetasikas are in ascendancy. Sincerely, Scott. #117872 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:31 am Subject: Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition ( waRe: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet -Hi Nina (p.s to Rob E) > Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just doesn't make sense to me. Thank you for the example of fear of unhappy rebirth conditioning a turn to kusala, by natural decisive support condition. Why is it natural decisive support condition rather than decisive support condition? Because it is the gradual result of many experiences of the object rather than one? metta, phil p.s Thanks for your post Rob E, the situation comes for a long one. Sorry for my quick and not catefullly considered post about akusala to kusala, I was trying to escape from the meditation topic, shouldn't have gotten involved.. #117873 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:32 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Ken H., KH: "...You and Alex make a great team. I feel like I am in a mad house. Why are you doing this to me!!!..." What about: Me (after Alex offers to start a new thread): "Please start one then." A: "Lets finish this discussion first. Do you accept Buddha's imperative for us to actively develop right effort? Without accepting such clear cut statements by the Buddha, there will be no point in going further." Huh? Make room, you've got a bunk mate. I think these guys already consider us to be crazy, by all accounts. Sincerely, Scott. #117874 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:42 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Scott > All conditioned dhammas function in the same way no matter 'where' they arise. They are not-self. There is no 'other' arising anywhere in any given moment of consciousness. Ph: Thanks. Pithy good! Metta, Phil #117875 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:05 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi pt and all Your other points: > 2. Further, if there's just thinking about an issue with lobha, this doesn't really produce vipaka does it? I mean, if there's no action committed as such? It should basically just accumulate more lobha, moha, and similar sort of thinking, right? Ph: I guesd right, just accumulates. But still dangerous. > 3. For that matter, does thinking classify as an event-producing-vipaka at some point? There's that formulation "good thoughts, words and deeds" so I was wondering if that's in reference to kamma/vipaka? Ph: Well, we have mental branch of akusala kamma patha, thoughts of ill eill and harming, thoughts of ...damn, can't remember the word, wanting things of others. And wrong view. But wouldn't that mean we are constantly performing akusala kamma patha? Only an especially petnicious wrong view? Metta, Phil > > Best wishes > pt > #117876 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:42 am Subject: The Grace of Gratitude! bhikkhu5 Friends: Appropriate Appreciation is Gratitude! One should be grateful towards one's Parents! Why so? They have worked hard and very long raising one into being! One should be grateful towards one's Teachers! Why so? They do much to make one learn and understand the good... One should be grateful towards one's Friends! Why so? They have shown one an open kindness and much goodwill! One should be grateful towards one's Spouse! Why so? They have loyally accompanied one along a long way... What is the future kammic effect of gratitude or ungratefulness? The one who is grateful will receive gifts and favours ever again! The one who is ungrateful will never again receive gifts or favours ! Thankfulness wisely invested thus pays back quite a lot! Therefore: Always Say Thanx! Thanx for Your Attention! ;-) <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #117877 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:14 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Huh? Make room, you've got a bunk mate. I think these guys already consider us to be crazy, by all accounts. I don't think you're crazy, just mean. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #117878 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:18 am Subject: Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition ( waRe: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > -Hi Nina (p.s to Rob E) > > > > Ph: I have come to be interested in details of conditionality, and no longer believe that akusala can condition kusala, it just doesn't make sense to me. > > Thank you for the example of fear of unhappy rebirth conditioning a turn to kusala, by natural decisive support condition. > > Why is it natural decisive support condition rather than decisive support condition? Because it is the gradual result of many experiences of the object rather than one? > > metta, > phil > > > p.s Thanks for your post Rob E, the situation comes for a long one. Sorry for my quick and not catefullly considered post about akusala to kusala, I was trying to escape from the meditation topic, shouldn't have gotten involved.. Always appreciate your acknowledging where you leave things, that is considerate. This idea of fear conditioning a turn to kusala would also apply to the meditation topic perhaps - desire to develop kusala may be akusala, but may lead to the development of kusala through right practice - just a loose idea, haven't worked it out. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117879 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi all > Ph: Well, we have mental branch of akusala kamma patha, thoughts of ill eill and harming, thoughts of ...damn, can't remember the word, wanting things of others. And wrong view. Ph: Intetesting "damn" above because there were cittas with dosa (and awareness of the unpleasant mental feeling) about not being able to remember words recently. And the "damn" is there as evidence of good example of speech intimation? Or physical since I wrote it? Let's say I spoke it. Can speech intimation be the words themselves, or only tone of voice? What is the relation between speech intimation and harsh speech that is akusala kamma patha? Metta, Phil p.s I remembered the word I was looking for, it is...ahh...oh GOD DAMMIT!!!! #117880 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:21 am Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > > Ph: Well, we have mental branch of akusala kamma patha, thoughts of ill eill and harming, thoughts of ...damn, can't remember the word, wanting things of others. And wrong view. > > Ph: Intetesting "damn" above because there were cittas with dosa (and awareness of the unpleasant mental feeling) about not being able to remember words recently. And the "damn" is there as evidence of good example of speech intimation? Or physical since I wrote it? Let's say I spoke it. Can speech intimation be the words themselves, or only tone of voice? What is the relation between speech intimation and harsh speech that is akusala kamma patha? I like these questions, so I keep jumping in. I think that writing can relay harsh speech - maybe it should be called 'harsh writing' but it seems like words/written concepts-patterns can come across with harshness. I wonder if the harsh objects of writing would be considered visual object and then mental object? I don't know what I'm talking about but it seems to make sense that the harshness registers in the mental reaction to written concepts and patterns, which are visual objects. > p.s I remembered the word I was looking for, it is...ahh...oh GOD DAMMIT!!!! There you go! You have relayed anticipation, frustration, anger - good writing! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117881 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:08 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Robert E and all, ------ <. . .> >> KH: If you could stop tilting at windmills for one second we could have a good discussion about that. >> > RE: Let's discuss those stanzas and what the Buddha is saying here. ------- KH: OK, but first we've got to agree on the rules. :-) My first rule of sutta discussion is that the commentary's interpretation takes precedence over my own. If I haven't heard the commentary I feel free to interpret the sutta as best I can in the light of other suttas, commentaries and Abhidhamma that I *have* heard. Quite often this will take me in a wrong direction; I might think the sutta is talking about viriya-cetasika, for example, when it`s actually talking about bavangha-citta. But as long as I have stayed consistent with other suttas no great harm will have been done. The sutta quote begins with: "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." KH: My interpretation is: The presently arisen citta can be akusala, in which case the accompanying cetasikas will also be akusala. Therefore, the presence of defiling cetasikas will be attributable to citta, not to anything else (or anyone else). The same applies when the citta is kusala; its purity is its own doing. So citta is the leader. My interpretation gets complicated, however, when we are talking about Path citta. In that case panna is the leader. So . . . Moving on to the next stanza: :-) > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." KH: "Clearly understanding" refers to panna. Clearly understanding citta, one is on the way to the final goal. Satipatthana (the mundane right path) leads to the supramundane path. Do not neglect satipatthana for the sake of some other path! That's me done: over to you Robert, and anyone else who wants to come to the rescue. Ken H #117882 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/26/2011 9:08:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert E and all, ------ <. . .> >> KH: If you could stop tilting at windmills for one second we could have a good discussion about that. >> > RE: Let's discuss those stanzas and what the Buddha is saying here. ------- KH: OK, but first we've got to agree on the rules. :-) My first rule of sutta discussion is that the commentary's interpretation takes precedence over my own. If I haven't heard the commentary I feel free to interpret the sutta as best I can in the light of other suttas, commentaries and Abhidhamma that I *have* heard. Quite often this will take me in a wrong direction; I might think the sutta is talking about viriya-cetasika, for example, when it`s actually talking about bavangha-citta. But as long as I have stayed consistent with other suttas no great harm will have been done. The sutta quote begins with: "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." KH: My interpretation is: The presently arisen citta can be akusala, in which case the accompanying cetasikas will also be akusala. Therefore, the presence of defiling cetasikas will be attributable to citta, not to anything else (or anyone else). The same applies when the citta is kusala; its purity is its own doing. So citta is the leader. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: The sentences quoted above distinguish, in the context of defiling and purifying, between the mind states of one stream and those of another. That is the crystal clear meaning of the language used. ---------------------------------------------------- My interpretation gets complicated, however, when we are talking about Path citta. In that case panna is the leader. So . . . Moving on to the next stanza: :-) > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." KH: "Clearly understanding" refers to panna. Clearly understanding citta, one is on the way to the final goal. Satipatthana (the mundane right path) leads to the supramundane path. Do not neglect satipatthana for the sake of some other path! That's me done: over to you Robert, and anyone else who wants to come to the rescue. Ken H ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117883 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi y'all > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil > left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on > oneself; no one can purify another." Phil's current interpretation. No one can purify or be purified by another because our experience of another person can only be as a concept. In our society most or many of us have been brought up in a way that has led to an accumulation of an inclination to want to help other people, that's an inclination that supports kusala, great. (see acrobat simike) But it doesn't have to do with satipatthana as far as I can see. Understanding is the only way out. Only we can develop the understanding that purifies. Our ideas about people certainly may provide support as object for metta, etc, but obviously not in a way that can be controlled. As for intersecting citta streams, good luck ever reaching an intersection of panna on that one! :) Metta, Phil > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > #117884 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again I wrote: >In our society most or many of us have been brought up in a way that has led to an accumulation of an inclination to want to help other people, that's an inclination that supports kusala, great. (see acrobat simike) But it doesn't have to do with satipatthana as far as I can see. Correction- acrobat simile is about satipatthana, it's in tge satipatthana section of SN I think. Protecting others ( as conceptual objects of metta etc) we protect ourselves by providing supporting supporting conditions for satipatthana or something like that. (Can't be done intentionally, of course, only by kusala cittas arising.) That's another sutta that is bound to have any number of interpretations. Whose are we wise to trust? Our own? I guess that's the big question. Metta Phil > > > > > > > > > > > Seamless Interdependence > > > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > > > (Anonymous) > > > > > > > > > #117885 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:22 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E and all, > > ------ > <. . .> > >> KH: If you could stop tilting at windmills for one second we could have a good discussion about that. > >> > > > RE: Let's discuss those stanzas and what the Buddha is saying here. > ------- > > KH: OK, but first we've got to agree on the rules. :-) > > My first rule of sutta discussion is that the commentary's interpretation takes precedence over my own. I'll let you have that rule for yourself, but not for me. My rule is that I don't divert from the meaning of the sutta as it is written unless I have evidence that another meaning is implied or implicated. In order to understand the latter possibility, a broader reading of sutta and commentary is helpful, but not decisive. When there is a conflict between the plain meaning of the sutta and a commentary, I will go with the sutta. But when a commentary clearly clarifies details and meanings that are set forth in the sutta, then those commentaries are extremely valuable. > If I haven't heard the commentary I feel free to interpret the sutta as best I can in the light of other suttas, commentaries and Abhidhamma that I *have* heard. I guess we would all do that within our understanding of what they all mean, but it does make a difference if you have a particular grounding philosophy by which you coordinate and harmonize the meanings of various scriptures. If you are already pre-committed to the idea that everything in sutta is a code for cittas and dhammas, then you will interpret accordingly. If you are already committed to the idea that the conventional realities play a role in the path, then you will interpret them differently. So we have to account for our divergent paradigms of the Dhamma. > Quite often this will take me in a wrong direction; I might think the sutta is talking about viriya-cetasika, for example, when it`s actually talking about bhavanga-citta. But as long as I have stayed consistent with other suttas no great harm will have been done. I think I can agree with that - consistency with the body of sutta is a good way to ground your understanding. > The sutta quote begins with: > > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." > > KH: My interpretation is: The presently arisen citta can be akusala, in which case the accompanying cetasikas will also be akusala. Therefore, the presence of defiling cetasikas will be attributable to citta, not to anything else (or anyone else). > > The same applies when the citta is kusala; its purity is its own doing. > > So citta is the leader. > > My interpretation gets complicated, however, when we are talking about Path citta. In that case panna is the leader. So . . . > > Moving on to the next stanza: :-) > > > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." > > KH: "Clearly understanding" refers to panna. Clearly understanding citta, one is on the way to the final goal. Satipatthana (the mundane right path) leads to the supramundane path. > > Do not neglect satipatthana for the sake of some other path! > > That's me done: over to you Robert, and anyone else who wants to come to the rescue. Well, first of all, I would say that your interpretation of the sutta is a very intelligent one, and that it is not out of line with anything the sutta says, so I compliment you on that, and appreciate the fact that nothing you said violated the letter or spirit of the sutta, and in fact explains it very nicely in paramatha terms. It sheds light on how it applies to the processes that underlie what the sutta is talking about. When commentaries or interpretations do what you have done - follow the line of thought of the sutta but explicate it in terms of paramatha dhammas, I have no problem with that, and appreciate the more detailed understanding of citta elements that it reveals. What I don't like is when the commentary diverges from the line of reasoning of the sutta and goes off onto a totally different subject or direction. This seems like a violation of the sutta and a kind of taking advantage of the sutta "in name only" to make one's own point. I think your take on the sutta is valuable, and doesn't do that. I would just add that while your explanation explains the possible application to paramatha dhammas in a really sharp way, it does leave out some of the conventional forms that are spoken of in the sutta. So I would just add my impressions of the conventional forms that Buddha speaks of here, without taking away from anything you have said: > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." The understanding I have of this is similar to yours but in case it has a slightly different slant, I'll put it in my own words: Kamma only applies to the individual and does not involve anyone else. One is personally responsible for their own intentions, actions and the results of same. In dhamma terms, you could say that the kusala or akusala cittas that contain kusala or akusala elements will carry forward or accumulate those elements that are promoted by them and continue to reap the results of such elements. I see it as being about kamma and vipaka, and I think that is implied in what you said. It also is a very clear principle of the Buddha's that the main reason for doing or not doing something is the effect it will have in terms of personal kamma, rather than the effect it will have on someone else. That also goes along with your suggestion that citta is self-contained and not subject to outside influences or influencing others. However, that confuses me a little bit when it comes to the importance of "good friends" and avoiding the wrong kind of people, and other negative influences that Buddha has talked about, so that's a question for me. > > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." This is really interesting in conventional terms, as one would expect a Buddhist to be helpful to others, but Buddha here is very intent on keeping the focus on oneself and the quality of one's own situation. My sense of this is that it is about kusala and the maintenance and development of kusala. It sounds like he is admonishing the person to refrain from taking actions to help someone if it will involve you in akusala activities. Conventionally, if you keep trying to help someone who is hanging out in the bar and drinking every night, you wind up hanging in the bar and being around drink yourself. Buddha is saying that it is more important to maintain the quality of your own experience and surroundings than to go into unwholesome activities for someone else's sake. In terms of mental states and the quality of citta, one would not for instance try to be a "good friend" to someone by talking about akusala topics that will pollute your own mental state, but resist and stay in a kusala mental state. So there is a sense of being mindful and "guarding the senses" in this passage too. In paramatha terms, it is about maintaining the purity of citta and not letting akusala influences creep in and pollute the citta. I agree that the second sentence has two great and very rich phrases: "Clearly understanding one's own welfare" is, as you say, about panna, but it is panna applied to kusala in particular. "One's own welfare" is that which is kusala and promotes the path, so it is also about understanding the path by understanding what is kusala and what is not. "let one be intent upon the good" both refers to kusala intention that is always aiming at promoting kusala, and also seems to implicate the intention to go forward on the path. That's me, both conventional and taking a stab at the paramatha level, for what it's worth! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117886 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:38 pm Subject: Re: On effort quotes epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Alex, > > A: "...The talk about mine, or Robert's meditation should be in another thread...As for detailed explanations of effort, it is a topic for a new thread." > > Scott: Please start one then. What would be the benefit? Wouldn't your purpose in promoting this just be to attack whatever is said as akusala and promoting self-view and promoting a fantasy about progressing on the path? I really mean it - is there any purpose in doing that other than to invite "on principle" disparagement? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117887 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all > > > > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil > > left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on > > oneself; no one can purify another." > > Phil's current interpretation. No one can purify or be purified by another because our experience of another person can only be as a concept. In our society most or many of us have been brought up in a way that has led to an accumulation of an inclination to want to help other people, that's an inclination that supports kusala, great. (see acrobat simike) But it doesn't have to do with satipatthana as far as I can see. Understanding is the only way out. Only we can develop the understanding that purifies. Our ideas about people certainly may provide support as object for metta, etc, but obviously not in a way that can be controlled. Good to hear your thoughts on this, Phil. This is turning into a very nice exchange on this sutta. > As for intersecting citta streams, good luck ever reaching an intersection of panna on that one! :) Well, we can't agree on everything. One day we will all be wise enough to agree... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117888 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:29 pm Subject: Check it out! About Crisis "apparitions", Ghosts, Divine Devas and Buddhist Cosmology... bhikkhu5 Friends: An genuinely interested friend asked: regarding: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09 /23/living/crisis-apparitions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 “I have difficulty in believing in ghosts and such supernatural beings as divine devas… I would appreciate your input on this and references to "What the Buddha Said" in the Suttas regarding this topic.†Answer: Consciousness and its subtle properties are virtually unknown in the West hehehe… ;-) Both neurologists and so-called scientist seems to admit that, when calling it: The hard problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hard_problem Early Noble Buddhists however have no problem whatsoever with the phenomenon of Consciousness! Why not: They know all about it from inside out hihihi ;-) No need for “debunking†anything here except one’s own folly and clinging to conventional, yet almost childlike naively wrong views… Can a child confirm or reject anything absolutely correct in all complex cases… Obviously not so… Especially not about something he have never seen, heard or experienced, yet not on that basis can ever conclude: “Such does not existâ€â€¦ Its like the man-blind-from-birth absurdly postulating: “The visible world, colors and forms do not exist…†which is grotesquely dogmatic false babble… Reg: Buddhist Canonical Corroboration: A whole canonical Tipitaka book spoken by the Buddha, Mahãmoggallãna and Sariputta is on conversations with ghosts and devas on what actions (kamma) brought them to this respectively high and low level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimanavatthu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petavatthu Vimanavatthu â€" Stories of the Celestial Divine Mansions 83 poems, each explaining how wholesome deeds led to a particular deity's rebirth in one of the heavenly realms. Availability of English translations: Print: Minor Anthologies (Vol IV) â€" Vimanavatthu: Stories of the Mansions, and Petavatthu, I.B. Horner, trans. (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1974). On-line: Selected suttas . Petavatthu â€" Stories of the Hungry Ghosts 51 poems, each explaining how unwholesome deeds led to the rebirth of a being into the miserable realm of the "Hungry Ghosts" (peta). Availability of English translations: Print: Minor Anthologies (Vol IV) â€" Vimanavatthu: Stories of the Mansions, and Petavatthu, I.B. Horner, trans. (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1974). On-line: Selected suttas . As complete book here (Excellently translated): Minor Anthologies of the Pali Canon, Volume 4 Vimanavatthu (stories on the mansions) & Petavatthu (Stories of The departed) Translated by: I.B. Horner, H. S. Gehman & N. A. Jayawickrama http://www.pariyatti.org/Bookstore/productdetails.cfm?PC=982 At night the Buddhas always advice divine deva =male, devata=female beings: A whole Samyutta Nikaya Section is devoted these interesting poetic conversations: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sagatha Regarding Classification of Devas (lit: shining ones) http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/deva.htm Some divine devas and devatas look ~like this: The Buddha shows some divine nymphs to Nanda to clear his amorous craving. Furthermore: Buddhist Cosmology: The 31 Planes of Existence: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html Video of Hell, Ghost, Animal Human and Divine Samsara Levels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDBHCxvX-Q Don't jump prematurely into any conclusion here. Do neither agree, nor disagree but: EXAMINE IT! THOROUGHLY, REPEATEDLY, COMPLETELY! That’s what Critical Science is all about yes ;-) Check it out! Some realistic imagery of the diversity of Petas = Ghosts: Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #117889 From: "connie" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:30 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta, sutta 4. Nine unfortunate, inopportune times nichiconn dear friends, CSCD 342. Walshe DN 33.3.2(4) 'Nine unfortunate, inopportune times for leading the holy life (akkha.naa asamayaa brahmacariya-vaasaaya): [iii 264] (a) A Tathaagata has been born in the world, Arahant, fully-enlightened Buddha, and the Dhamma is taught which leads to calm and perfect Nibbaana, which leads to enlightenment as taught by the Well-Farer, and this person is born in a hell-state (niraya'm), ... (b) ... among the animals, (c) ... among the petas, (d) ... among the asuras, (e) ... in a long-lived group of devas or (f) he is born in the border regions among foolish barbarians where there is no access for monks and nuns, or male and female lay-followers, or (g) he is born in the Middle Country, but he has wrong views and distorted vision, thinking: "There is no giving, offering or sacrificing, there is no fruit or result of good or bad deeds; there is not this world and the next world; [iii 265] there are no ascetics and Brahmins in the world who, having attained to the highest and realised for themselves the highest knowledge about this world and the next, proclaim it"; or (h) ... he is born in the Middle Country but lacks wisdom and is stupid, or is deaf and dumb and cannot tell whether something has been well said or ill said; or else ... (i) no Tathaagata has arisen ... and this person is born in the Middle Country and is intelligent, not stupid, and not deaf or dumb, and well able to tell whether something has been well said or ill said. ....tbc, connie #117890 From: Vince Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > N: Also my fault, due to lack of time. I put many in my concept file, > and hope to find time later. you and other people in this list who knows Abhidhamma make a nice effort for share it. I suppose everyone has a rhythm. Sometimes when I read something interesting it occupies me some days to digest it, and the other doubts disappears. And then I wonder about the old doubts. There is a nice Sutta (I cannot remember the name) about how to be detached from the doubt instead looking for answers. Showing the doubt itself as dhukkha. In a similar way, Is there in Abbhidhamma some explanation on the relation of doubt and dukkha? best, Vince, #117891 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta, sutta 4. Nine unfortunate times and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, The Nines, sutta 4 'Nine unfortunate, inopportune times for leading the holy life (akkha.naa asamayaa brahmacariya-vaasaaya): [iii 264] (a) A Tathaagata has been born in the world, and this person is born in a hell-state (niraya'm), ... (b) ... among the animals, (c) ... among the petas, (d) ... among the asuras, (e) ... in a long-lived group of devas or (f) he is born in the border regions among foolish barbarians (g) he is born in the Middle Country, but he has wrong views and distorted vision, thinking or (h) ... he is born in theMiddle Country but lacks wisdom andis stupid, or is deaf and dumb (i) no Tathaagata has arisen ... ----------- N: Co: As Dhamma is taught in unfavorable times, the co adds: the Dhamma of the four noble truths. As to (the Dhamma ) leading to calm (opasamiko): to the quenching of defilements (kilesuupasamakaro). As to leading to parinibbaana (final passing away), the co states: leading to parinibbaana by the parinibbaana of defilements (complete extinction of defilements). ------ The Tiika adds to 'leading to calm': leading to the relinquisment of the cyle of dukkha; he relinquises this cyle of dukkha when the defilements are quenched, not otherwise. Therefore it is said leading to the quenching of defilements. In this way he attains awakening. Co: As to leading to enlightenment: leading to the realisation of the four Paths. N: the Path-consciousness of the four stages of enlightenment. As to the fifth unfavorable time, being born among some long-lived devas: the co adds: birth as an asa~n~na satta, a being without consciousness, or a being born in an aruupa brahma plane. The Tiika: in this deva group the teaching of Dhamma is not known because there is no listener. The text referring to the group of devas with long life states: those born without consciousness or as an aruupa-brahma. N: In those planes one cannot develop understanding of naama and ruupa. In an aruupa brahma plane one cannot attain the stage of the sotaapanna, since there are no ruupas one could be aware of. ------- Conclusion: we are reminded that there have to be many favorable conditions concurring in order to be able to listen to the Dhamma and attain enlightenment. This is not possible if there is rebirth is in an unfavorable plane, such as the animal plane or hell, and even if one is born in a happy plane, someone may not be able to be in the right location where he can hear true Dhamma. Or he may have accumulated wrong view, or he lacks wisdom and is deaf and dumb. This is the case when one is born without beautiful roots (ahetuka vipaakacitta), as a result of weak kusala kamma, or if one is born with the beautiful roots of non-attachment and non-aversion but lacks the root of pa~n~naa. Or one is born at a time that the Buddha's teachings are unknown. There are aeons when there is no appearance of a Buddha. Thus, it is a rare opportunity to be born at the right time and the right place where one can listen to the Dhamma and develop understanding. This exhorts us not to waste any opportunity to develop understanding of realities right now. We should not be negligent because we do not know whether we have such a precious opportunity in the future. ------- Nina. #117892 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 25-sep-2011, om 17:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Mindfulness of > > the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true > > characteristics.> > > This seems to be saying that one is attending the rupas of both > breath and physical body with mindfulness as they arise for citta > in attending the breath. So there is at least this aspect of > attending the actual rupas for development of mindfulness of their > characteristics. Is this correct? > ------- N: In the ultimate sense there is no physical body. He just attends to one dhamma at a time, in this case tangible object. Only ultimate dhammas have the three general characteristics and these should be known. It is already difficult to be aware of the ruupa that is hardness when touching things such as fork and spoon. Breath is a more subtle tangible object and thus it is even more difficult to attend to its characteristic. -------- > > R: > He > > contemplates (anupassati): he keeps re-seeing (anu anu passati) with > > jhana knowledge and with insight knowledge. > > Can you help me to understand the nature of "re-seeing" (anu anu > passati)and what that means? > ------- N: Again and again. Awareness over and over again. ------- > > R: Also, what is jhana knowledge? I think it is more obvious what > insight knowledge is, but one usually speaks of jhana-citta as an > expression of samatha, rather than of knowing. I am interested to > know how jhana knowledge would be understood. > ------- N: Mindfulness of Breath is included in the Application of Mindfulness of Body (ruupa), because it is an object of satipa.t.thaana. Objects of jhaana are included, because jhaana can be a basis for insight. When we study the four Tetrads as explained in the Visuddhimagga we see that both jhaana and insight are being developed. For jhaana mindfulness and pa~n~naa are essential. One has to know precisely from the very beginning when the citta is kusala and when akusala. -------- > R: . > > which is rather contemplation of its essence [N: characteristic] as > > impermanent, painful, not self, and foul, according as is > > appropriate, or alternatively, which is contemplation of it as a > mere > > body only, by not contemplating it as containing anything that > can be > > apprehended as "I" or "mine" or "woman" or "man" all this is > > contemplation of the body. > > The above aspect of attending the breath seems to be more focused > on seeing the general characteristics of the breath as a concept. > Am I correct that this part is about contemplating breath as a > concept, and the other passage that I quoted above about the > "rupas" is contemplating bodily/breath rupas as objects of direct > mindfulness? > ------- N: In the satipa.t.thaanasutta the subjects are not concepts, it points to dhammas that have the three general characteristics, even when the language is conventional, like body, corpses or postures. The Buddha also used conventional terms to explain ultimate realities. Contemplation of it as a mere body; read: as mere ruupa. -------- > R: > > The mindfulness associated with that > > contemplation of the body...is the "development of the > > foundation (establishment) of mindfulness consisting in > contemplation > > of the body"(Pm. 261)>... Not only concentration, > > but realizing the three characteristics is the goal. Mindfulness of > > the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true > > characteristics.> > > Here it is stated that both concentration and realization of the > three characteristics is the goal, through mindfulness of the > realities appearhing while breathing... > > So this seems like direct practice of satipatthana - realizing the > characteristics through direct mindfulness of paramatha dhammas, > while at the same time direct development of samatha/concentration. > Is this correct? > -------- N: It is better to leave out my words: because concentration is not the goal. Concentration is not absent, right concentration accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path. As explained above: someone may develop jhaana, but then jhaana is base of proximate cause for insight. He must be aware of all naamas and ruupas appearing through the six doors, jhaanafactors included, when he has emerged from jhaana. ------ Nina. > #117893 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- On Mon, 26/9/11, philip wrote: >Ph....Ken might go too far by saying there us just one citta. .... S: I don't think so. Life exists in a moment - just this moment, this citta! >But it's true that only the present dhamma is of importance. If we develop understanding, our treatment of other people will work out on its own. .... S: Very true. There will be more and more appreciation of the value of kind and gentle speech, wishing others well. Yesterday I was arranging some airline tickets. I spoke to two different airline telephone operators after waiting about an hour in each case. One was very abrupt, rather rude and unhelpful. The other was patient, kind and helpful. I'm sure everyone would like the help of the second one. Metta - just as we'd like to be happy and hear gentle speech, so would others. "...Likewise everyone holds himself most dear, Hence one who loves himself should not harm another." The commentary: “....whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.......since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonize with the hand, a clod of earth or a stick and so on, another being......For when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one’s (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. For this is the law of karma.†(Masefiled transl of comy, Ireland transl of sutta, Sona Chapter 1, Udana) .... >But yes, in sone real way our behaviour impacts on others. Enough said. No need to get wrapped up even tighter in layers of thinking and theorizing exactly how. We could die today. Back to the present monent. :) ... S: Well said. Back to the present moment, back to the citta now :) Metta Sarah ====== #117894 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 9/26/2011 11:22:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: > The sutta quote begins with: > > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." > > KH: My interpretation is: The presently arisen citta can be akusala, in which case the accompanying cetasikas will also be akusala. Therefore, the presence of defiling cetasikas will be attributable to citta, not to anything else (or anyone else). > > The same applies when the citta is kusala; its purity is its own doing. > > So citta is the leader. > > My interpretation gets complicated, however, when we are talking about Path citta. In that case panna is the leader. So . . . > > Moving on to the next stanza: :-) > > > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." > > KH: "Clearly understanding" refers to panna. Clearly understanding citta, one is on the way to the final goal. Satipatthana (the mundane right path) leads to the supramundane path. > > Do not neglect satipatthana for the sake of some other path! > > That's me done: over to you Robert, and anyone else who wants to come to the rescue. Well, first of all, I would say that your interpretation of the sutta is a very intelligent one, and that it is not out of line with anything the sutta says, so I compliment you on that, and appreciate the fact that nothing you said violated the letter or spirit of the sutta, and in fact explains it very nicely in paramatha terms. It sheds light on how it applies to the processes that underlie what the sutta is talking about. ============================= I respectfully disagree with you, Robert. It is indeed so that citta is the leader in general (and that in the case of the culmination of examining the 4 foundations of mindfulness, wisdom is), but that entirely misses the point of the first quoted stanza: "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another," and, in fact, the second stanza continues the meaning of the first. The issues that Ken raises, while valid and important, are entirely tangential to what the Buddha was teaching here. This makes me think of the case of an American history teacher telling her class the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn about the British approaching, and when asking the class what is to be learned from this, little Johnny answers "It's that Mr. Revere had a horse." With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117895 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:42 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Sarah, S: "There will be more and more appreciation of the value of kind and gentle speech, wishing others well...Likewise everyone holds himself most dear, Hence one who loves himself should not harm another... therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm...For when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one’s (own) self..." Scott: Do you think that there can be the appearance of gentle speech without the influence of metta? Do you think there is value in simply creating an impression of kindness at the surface? How do you see the connection between thinking of the above and the actual arising of metta? Does the development of metta come from trying to develop metta by thinking about descriptions of metta in terms of self and others? Do these questions seem unkind? I am asking for real and this is just how I expressed them. Would they seem different if I embellished the presentation somehow? Would there be more kindness, necessarily, were I to have added a phrase like: 'Hey Sarah, I've been thinking about what you wrote and had a few questions come to mind...' or some such? For me, I really do have these questions, think them to be good, and don't happen to write extra stuff. Isn't just trying to look gentle very similar to trying to 'meditate?' What is the connection between appearing gentle and metta? Sincerely, Scott. #117896 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 27-sep-2011, om 10:45 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > In a similar way, Is there in Abbhidhamma some explanation on the > relation of > doubt and dukkha? ----- N: All conditioned dhammas are dukkha, doubt included, because they arise and fall away. Nina. #117897 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Scott, interesting remarks. Op 27-sep-2011, om 14:42 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Scott: Do you think that there can be the appearance of gentle > speech without the influence of metta? Do you think there is value > in simply creating an impression of kindness at the surface? How do > you see the connection between thinking of the above and the actual > arising of metta? ------ N: Then the kindness is not sincere, from the heart, and somehow it comes over differently. It can be sensed, but perhaps not always or by all. ------ > S: Does the development of metta come from trying to develop metta > by thinking about descriptions of metta in terms of self and others? ------- N: Not by thinking about it. But the Vis. gives an example: metta towards yourself and this is often misunderstood. It means: think of how you would like to be treated yourself, and then you can better understand how to treat others. You would not like to hear harsh speech and this can remind you not to use harsh speech to others. You give examples sometimes of how kusala is spoiled by akusala thoughts about it (I am a good person, etc,) but we should not be too much afraid. There is also kusala. I remember once that you found that there was conceit about sending mails and that this would stop you from sending mails. I would think that this is too much worry. All the same, it is good to be reminded how much attachment comes in, pleasant feeling with attachment. For example, Rob E likened my mail to eating chocolate ;-)) I was so pleased! Your reminders are well taken! Nina. #117898 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Scott, --- On Tue, 27/9/11, scottduncan2 wrote: >Scott: Do you think that there can be the appearance of gentle speech without the influence of metta? .... Sarah: Yes. In the end only panna knows. .... >Do you think there is value in simply creating an impression of kindness at the surface? .... Sarah: If there's no kusala, there's no value. If there's kusala whilst creating that impression, for example whilst giving a service in a shop, then the moments of kusala are of value. .... >How do you see the connection between thinking of the above and the actual arising of metta? .... Sarah: Thinking can be kusala or akusala. Metta arises when there is kusala concern for others' welfare. For example, one may be feeling ill or be worried about something, but try not to show it "at the surface" and smile instead, so that others are not concerned or troubled. Different moments, different cittas. Rather than think of different situations, better just develop panna which understands the present dhammas now. Is there metta now? Seeing now? Dosa now? .... >Does the development of metta come from trying to develop metta by thinking about descriptions of metta in terms of self and others? .... S: Metta never develops by "trying to develop metta" in anyway. Metta develops through the understanding of its characteristic when it arises and through understanding its value. Hearing, considering, reading, considering wisely about all kinds of dhammas are the conditions for such understanding. As for reading suttas or texts "in terms of self and others", it depends on the understanding whilst reading them as to whether they are a condition for wise reflection and more understanding or for wrong view and attachment to ideas of people and beings. .... >Do these questions seem unkind? ... Sarah: No. Good qus:-) ... >I am asking for real and this is just how I expressed them. Would they seem different if I embellished the presentation somehow? .... Sarah: A bit too hypothetical for bed-time! ... >Would there be more kindness, necessarily, were I to have added a phrase like: 'Hey Sarah, I've been thinking about what you wrote and had a few questions come to mind...' or some such? For me, I really do have these questions, think them to be good, and don't happen to write extra stuff. .... Sarah: Only 'your' panna can rightly judge the plus or minus kindness at any moment! My impression is that usually when you write to me there's no unkindness no matter how direct, so nothing scary:-)) ... >Isn't just trying to look gentle very similar to trying to 'meditate?' .... S: Has anyone suggested "just trying to look gentle"? Not sure where this is heading. Not sure what the connection is with "trying to 'meditate'" Someone might try to look gentle to ingratiate themselves or get something but this would have nothing to do with thinking it was Buddhist practice. Now, appearing more gentle (less scary!!) with kusala cittas is different. For example, I'm sure you try to put your patients/clients at ease by speaking in a kind manner, don't you? Likewise, having each others' good interest at heart now, we can speak in a way that is pleasant. Of course the only real criterion is the kusala itself. One man's meat is another man's poison and all that. I'm quite sure my manners may be infuriating to some. The point is that we just do our best and then sleep well! ... >What is the connection between appearing gentle and metta? ... Sarah: When there's metta, usually someone appears gentle, but as we know, the only criterion is the citta. A mother or teacher might speak loudly to a child with metta on occasion and Osama Bin Laden was known for his soft, pleasant-soundng speech. Remember those examples in the Atthasalini? Generally, though, everyone appreciates kind speech. Don't you? Giving the gift of freedom from fear, freedom from agitation, freedom from unhappiness, even though we know the responses will depend on accumulations. We all have the Buddha's example of speech with the greatest compassion for all our welfare. And now it really is sleep time.... Metta Sarah ====== #117899 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Howard, KenH, Scott, all, >H: It is indeed so that citta is the leader in general (and that in >the case of the culmination of examining the 4 foundations of >mindfulness, wisdom is), but that entirely misses the point of the >first quoted stanza: ...The issues that Ken raises, while valid and >important, are entirely tangential to what the Buddha was teaching >here. This makes me think of the case of an American history >teacher telling her class the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn >about the British approaching, and when asking the class what is to >be learned from this, little Johnny answers "It's that Mr. Revere >had a horse." >============================================= Very well said. I'd like to add. This is similar to the discussion on effort being cetasika. It is true that effort is a cetasika that is called such and such. But this doesn't alter the fact that effort occurs and that Buddha did teach about intentional effort. And in that Dhammapada quote it does say that oneself needs to exert. There is no knight in shining armor that comes to the rescue. It is true that car's wheel are round and car is made of millions of components. It doesn't alter the fact that car is used to drive, and driving occurs. With best wishes, Alex #117900 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi alex and all > Very well said. I'd like to add. This is similar to the discussion on effort being cetasika. It is true that effort is a cetasika that is called such and such. But this doesn't alter the fact that effort occurs and that Buddha did teach about intentional effort. And in that Dhammapada quote it does say that oneself needs to exert. There is no knight in shining armor that comes to the rescue. Ph; There is no possibilty whatsoever of anything other than cetasikas (or dhammas, if you prefer) striving. Are you saying that people striving has some real meaning? Are you talking abouf some kind of work ethic or Dhamma? I don't get it. How can a person strive in a Dhamma sense rather than dhammas? How does effort "occur" as ypu correctly put it other than by the functioning of virya and other dhammas? No sutta quotes please. Metta, Phil #117901 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Scott Terse question and short answer posts are great.People like me and Rob E have an accumulated tendency for affability and volubility when writing, but that means people have to dig through an awful lot of whipped cream to get to the strawberries. I know you're not seeking approval, not explicitly anyways (mana etc always are seeking approval for all of us to some degree) but I hope you keep posting and give 'em a hard time, give 'em hugs and kisses, whatever, doesn't matter. Dhamma content is more important than manners. I don't know if I will believe that in 5 minutes, but I believe it at this very moment. No response necessary. Metta, Phil #117902 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:26 am Subject: Objects mske citta evident philofillet Hi all Great sentence from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "The different objects that appear through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body sense and the mind-door make it evident that there is citta, that is, the reality which experiences, the element which experiences." Metta, Phil #117903 From: Lukas Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:42 am Subject: sickness of the body szmicio Hi friends, I've got inflamed sinuses, very painful disease, I feel weak. I am thinking of a 'strong painkillers'. But I know that would be better to dont go in this direction. Somehow I need to try to listen Dhamma more, but always when I got up i am in that same pattern. Drinking a lot of mornig coffies with nicotine break in between and then listening to the music. A lot of agitation, a lot of akusala a lot of dosa. Best wishes Lukas #117904 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:55 am Subject: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, all - Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. In 6 months I'll have a follow-up cat scan, but the surgeon said we should not worry, and he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117905 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "Then the kindness is not sincere, from the heart, and somehow it comes over differently. It can be sensed, but perhaps not always or by all." Sensed, yes. Undeveloped pa~n~naa cannot know external dhammas. This 'sensing' then, in my opinion, is not necessarily to be trusted because it is more than likely to be just internal thinking and feeling. N: "Not by thinking about it...think of how you would like to be treated yourself, and then you can better understand how to treat others. You would not like to hear harsh speech and this can remind you not to use harsh speech to others." Scott: Okay sure, yet this message is more or less a definition for worldly empathy which is fine in principle and present less often than not. And the message of 'do unto others' etc. is not unknown in the ordinary world either. The complexity of things ought to suggest that there is much more to it, else of what use a Buddha? A very important question remains: What is the role of the content of thinking in the development of, in this case, metta? We agree that it is 'not by thinking about it' yet above you go on to describe just that - some thoughts about it. Hearing 'harsh speech' may amount to thinking that arises after the experience of vipaaka, for example. What is 'harsh' for me may not be for someone else, and may not have even been intimated by akusala in the other. Think of those who actually heard the words of a Buddha but were unaffected. Many different possibilities exist to explain such an event. N: "...we should not be too much afraid. There is also kusala. I remember once that you found that there was conceit about sending mails and that this would stop you from sending mails. I would think that this is too much worry." Scott: Yes, I remember this. I recall it was about dosa but it amounts to the same dilemma. Should I post if I think I am too angry? Should I post if I think I don't know enough? Should I post if I think I know more than someone else? And what is 'too much worry?' What is the optimal amount? Do you see what I'm getting at here? N: "...Rob E likened my mail to eating chocolate ;-)) I was so pleased!..." And why not be!? Rob E. thought my posts were 'mean.' Should I be displeased? So there is attachment and aversion. You say, post any way, and so we all do. Food for thought, as it were. Sincerely, Scott. #117906 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, Effort occurs, and the Buddha did talk about its importance. Effort can be described as the process of cetasikas when analyzed from the perspective of Abh, or as a person striving when analyzed from another equally (perhaps even more important and real) angle. Driving a car can be described as "person driving the car", or one can describe how every transistor functions and every process occurs. The more detailed description doesn't reject that action does occur. The fact is that the Buddha did tell us to exert. With best wishes, Alex #117907 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon hantun1 Dear Howard, I am very happy about the good news. May you live a very long healthy, happy and useful life! with metta and respect, Han --- On Wed, 9/28/11, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, all - Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. In 6 months I'll have a follow-up cat scan, but the surgeon said we should not worry, and he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117908 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:21 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Effort occurs, and the Buddha did talk about its importance. Effort can be described as the process of cetasikas when analyzed from the perspective of Abh, or as a person striving when analyzed from another equally (perhaps even more important and real) angle. > > Driving a car can be described as "person driving the car", or one can describe how every transistor functions and every process occurs. The more detailed description doesn't reject that action does occur. > > The fact is that the Buddha did tell us to exert. That fact is not under dispute. I know you often interpret the issue in terms of people here telling you that the Buddha in fact told us NOT to exert, but I think that's a misunderstanding. 1. the Buddha praised effort and exertion. I think we agree here. 2. it's most likely that the Buddha in fact praised right effort, or at least effort that accompanies a kusala citta. So not just any kind of effort, because effort can also accompany akusala citta. I think we also agree here. So, there is no real disagreement on these aspects of Dhamma in theory. But there is disagreement when trying to describe to eachother in practical terms how we experience the difference between right and wrong effort. For example, some say that whenever they try to do something on purpose, the motivation behind that trying will determine the sort of citta it is - kusala or akusala, and thus the sort of effort it is. If lobha is the motivation for the citta, then effort will be akusala. Of course, only panna will realise that there's lobha. And I find that this realisation is mostly possible if someone beforehand warns about the likelyhood of akusala occurring. So I think that's what people here do most of the time - warn about the possible akusala and about the value of kusala, as they've experienced these on their own. Naturally, there'll be differences in experiences and descriptions of these. Best wishes pt #117909 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Han - In a message dated 9/27/2011 6:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Dear Howard, I am very happy about the good news. May you live a very long healthy, happy and useful life! ------------------------------------------------ Thank you, Sir! I wish you the very same! ------------------------------------------------ with metta and respect, Han ============================== Much metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117910 From: "Christine" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:41 am Subject: Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon christine_fo... Hello Howard, This is good news! And it is great for meditators to have a little Samvega-vatthu to liven up their practice. May you live long and may all good things come to you! with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #117911 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> > HCW: The sentences quoted above distinguish, in the context of defiling and purifying, between the mind states of one stream and those of another. That is the crystal clear meaning of the language used. ---- KH: I don't believe the Dhamma does distinguish between the mind states of one stream and those of another. The Dhamma says *all* conditioned dhammas are anicca dukkha and anatta. So why would it bother to make distinctions? Ken H #117912 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Phil, ------------- > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil > left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on > oneself; no one can purify another." > Ph: Phil's current interpretation. No one can purify or be purified by another because our experience of another person can only be as a concept. <. . .> ------------- KH: I am sure what you say is correct and consistent with the suttas as a whole. But I wonder if you are addressing exactly the same issue that this particular sutta addresses. According to my understanding, the fact that other people are experienced as concepts is not a problem we encounter in understanding suttas. I could be wrong, but I believe the conventional language the Buddha often uses is to be understood in Abhidhamma language. So, when the Buddha talks about a sentient being we are not expected to think he is talking about dhammas indirectly by way of a concept; he is talking about dhammas *directly*. All other Dhamma speakers (with the possible exception of Theras) are to be understood the other way. We have to distinguish between when they are talking about concepts and when they are talking about realities. But with the Buddha it's all realities. But, as I say, I could be wrong. Ken H #117913 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:54 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----------- <. . .> > RE: I'll let you have that rule for yourself, but not for me. <. . .> When there is a conflict between the plain meaning of the sutta and a commentary, I will go with the sutta. ------------ KH: There you go again - driving me mad - condemning me to a padded cell with Scott as my only companion! :-) In future, please say, "I will go with *my understanding of* the sutta." Please don't imply that the rest of us are deliberately choosing to reject the sutta. -------------------- <. . .> > RE: Well, first of all, I would say that your interpretation of the sutta is a very intelligent one, and that it is not out of line with anything the sutta says, -------------------- KH: Thank you, it might not be on the same topic, but I will be very happy if it is not out of line. ----------------------------- <. . .> > RE: It also is a very clear principle of the Buddha's that the main reason for doing or not doing something is the effect it will have in terms of personal kamma, rather than the effect it will have on someone else. That also goes along with your suggestion that citta is self-contained and not subject to outside influences or influencing others. However, that confuses me a little bit when it comes to the importance of "good friends" and avoiding the wrong kind of people, and other negative influences that Buddha has talked about, so that's a question for me. ----------------------------- KH: A citta's good friends are samma-ditthi, samma-sankhapa, and the other path-factor cetasikas. And that's not just my crazy notion; I have heard it from others here. :-) ----------------- <. . .> > RE: "let one be intent upon the good" both refers to kusala intention that is always aiming at promoting kusala, and also seems to implicate the intention to go forward on the path. That's me, both conventional and taking a stab at the paramatha level, for what it's worth! ---------------- KH: I am half happy to hear it. :-) I would say the `intention to go forward on the path' arose in every moment of path progress. But not in any preceding akusala moment. Ken H #117914 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex > Effort occurs, and the Buddha did talk about its importance. Ph: No question there. Virya accompanies almost all cittas, and virya can be one of the 4 predominant factors along with (if I recall correctly chanda, citta and...panna?) Lobha can't accomplish anything. PhEffort can be described as the process of cetasikas when analyzed from the perspective of Abh, or as a person striving when analyzed from another equally (perhaps even more important and real) angle. Ph: I don't see how we can say "analyzed" as a person, because that is the obvious way things are seen, by Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is the Dhamma that allows understanding to dig deeper. And I certainly don't understand how on a earth a person striving can possibly be seen to be "more important and real." There is a section (vagga? samyutta?) of SN addressed to a king. The intro to that vagga/samyutta says that (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi who has gone off the rails with his talk of global Buddhist social action and stuuf like that recently and has lost trustworthiness in my opinion) the king in question completely lacked understanding and had to be addressed in strictly conventional terms because the deeper teaching would not be understood by him. As you may remember, until recently I have often mentionned the teaching that the Buddha taught a conventional teaching until the listener's mind was ready for the deep teaching. So why do I now feel that to keep thinking about ideas of selves doing this and that (notions of self that will be discarded as understanding develop) is not the wise way to go? I'm not sure, but it has sunk in and clicked, there must be moments of detachment, and they cannot come when we are promoting strategies using selves. (Ken H often talks about T.B's "no-self" strategy, I'm surprised by that, I listened to him a lot and there was always a lot of talk about what I mentionned above, "self-ing", using self to get rid of self etc.) > Driving a car can be described as "person driving the car", or one can describe how every transistor functions and every process occurs. The more detailed description doesn't reject that action does occur. Ph: You want to promote an idea of Abhidhamma being about minute details of no immediate importance, such as transistors, details that can only be understood intellectually. And there are some of those details, such as the 17 moments of a citta process. But what is of more immediate importance in Abhidhamma is very much engine and wheel and steering wheel and brake issues that can be undersood and confirmed in daily life, not transistor issues. And it is by these wheel and engine issues (virya, for one) that energy and striving can be understood in a liberating way. > The fact is that the Buddha did tell us to exert. Ph: I'm sorry, I still don't understand how a person can exert. By making use of the ideas of self I wrote about above? What exerts? If it is not virya, it can only be self. Until recently, I believed in those ideas of using self to get rid of self so I can understand where you are coming from if that is what you believe. Now I think they are not wise at best and possibly dangerous, they will just make it harder for us to get to the deep teaching, not easier as I used to believe. (I used to believe that using ideas of self would perfect sila, and within perfected sila there would be better conditions to understand the deep teachings. I still think there are elements of truth in that, but as a paradigm (??? I mean a general schema of some sort) for approaching Dhamma, it is very faulty. Thanks Alex. Metta, Phil #117915 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again > PhEffort can be described as the process of cetasikas when analyzed from the perspective of Abh, or as a person striving when analyzed from another equally (perhaps even more important and real) angle. Oops, a Ph got in there, the above are Alex's words. Metta, Phil #117916 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Ken H > I could be wrong, but I believe the conventional language the Buddha often uses is to be understood in Abhidhamma language. So, when the Buddha talks about a sentient being we are not expected to think he is talking about dhammas indirectly by way of a concept; he is talking about dhammas *directly*. > > All other Dhamma speakers (with the possible exception of Theras) are to be understood the other way. We have to distinguish between when they are talking about concepts and when they are talking about realities. But with the Buddha it's all realities. > > But, as I say, I could be wrong. Ph: You could be right, too. Somehow there weren't conditions for my understanding to click on this topic at this moment because there weren't conditions for virya to become predominant and support thinking hard about this topic! Maybe later... :) Metta, Phil #117917 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Sarah, S: "...Has anyone suggested 'just trying to look gentle'? Not sure where this is heading. Not sure what the connection is with 'trying to 'meditate'' Someone might try to look gentle to ingratiate themselves or get something but this would have nothing to do with thinking it was Buddhist practice." Scott: Now you are beginning to sound like me. Ha ha. No, stay your hypervigilance, I'm not trying anything nefarious with you. Of course all this talk of harsh speech now on the list relates to my style (as well as that of others I assume) since my return. I left for a year or whatever because my style of 'speech' was deemed by someone else to be not to their liking. It was suggested that I try to look more gentle. Now I'm back and it's happening again. I might be direct in my style, I might enjoy playing with words, but I don't like faking nice. I think it is quite easy to see through flowery words, and to pretend that in using fake politeness one is somehow more 'buddhist' because of it is, to me, what is most ridiculous about religion. My point is I'm not going to do it here. I make the connection to 'meditation' because I think that cries of harsh speech are much like the repeated cry of the meditators. I don't act like someone I'm not in the same way that I don't sit and 'meditate.' My 'practice' isn't to come across in a self-righteous and false fashion for appearance sake. I do work over the posts I write. I don't believe in false kindness. I don't like winky guys and the like. So I don't have a 'practice' of writing to please. This is how I write. S: "...I'm sure you try to put your patients/clients at ease by speaking in a kind manner, don't you?..." Scott: I work in a busy out-patient psychiatry department and with a very wide range of characters, some of whom would take a mile if you gave them an inch, so sometimes yes I speak kindly, but certainly not all the time - and for good reason. S: "Likewise, having each others' good interest at heart now, we can speak in a way that is pleasant. Of course the only real criterion is the kusala itself. One man's meat is another man's poison and all that. I'm quite sure my manners may be infuriating to some. The point is that we just do our best and then sleep well!" Scott: I don't have a problem with my style of discussing. We all have our styles. I certainly don't have a problem with yours. I don't happen to do diplomacy. I like to discuss directly. S: "Generally, though, everyone appreciates kind speech. Don't you? Giving the gift of freedom from fear, freedom from agitation, freedom from unhappiness, even though we know the responses will depend on accumulations..." Scott: I can roll with the punches, Sarah. I'm an adult. I sometimes think, no offense, that cries of 'harsh speech' on the list come too often from only one quarter - the meditators. And that's just when one disagrees with them vigourously. They aren't angels and they aren't scared, believe me. I think I know the lay of the land here. Over to you. Do with me what you will... Sincerely, Scott. #117918 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >Ph: I don't see how we can say "analyzed" as a person, because that >is the obvious way things are seen, by Buddhists and non-Buddhists. >============================================== I hope that we can agree that the Buddha spoke the truth and did not mislead us. My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not cling to anything. In order to let go of clinging we need to see the drawbacks of clinging. The more obvious the suffering due to clinging, the more obvious is the need to let go of it. The more impact of craving is seen, the stronger the dispassion toward it develops. Buddha didn't create an abstract proofs (with potentially very limited effect), but very down to Earth examples of drawbacks of craving. When it comes to disadvantages of craving, good sutta is SN42.11 that clearly and soberly tells us how craving is source of suffering. The more the teaching talks about things that experientially matter, the more effective it is. When lust arises, it is good to recollect about corpses, death, un-beautiful body parts etc. When anger arises, then it is good to reflect on metta. Specific problems require specific solution and on specific levels. Before one trains to let go off clinging to subtlest traces of mind, there are much more gross defilements that need to be dealt with. And in the beginning the methods are typically going to be coarser. Birth, aging and death of people is, IMHO, far more dispassion producing than talking about billions of cittas arising and ceasing every split second. Remember the story of what motivated Gotama to seek Awakening? It was the sight of sick man, old man, dead man and a monk that created such a sense of urgency. Gotama wanted to escape that. That was very shocking to him. IMHO we cling to things and to existence not because we fail to see billions of mental states arising and ceasing, but because we fail to fully see and appreciate (not just with the head, but with heart as well) aging, sickness and death of the body and all the uselessness of clinging to things. I like whenever the Buddha taught deep Dhamma while talking about everyday experience that is actually relevant. The more His teaching is here-and-now, the more relevant to here-and-now it is. Dhamma is not about answers to every question about what the world is made of. It is about cessation of all suffering. Breaking things into tiny particles doesn't alter the fact that thing-as-emergent phenomena still exists. Quantum Physicist who tell us that matter is mostly empty space still operate in conventional world where chairs, walls, and other objects are solid. It may be interesting to talk about what happens when matter is analyzed to the limit, but for actual experience it doesn't matter. The real world isn't about billions of cittas and rupas rising a falling that worries us. There are people, cars, and real life calamities that actually occur. Sometimes more obvious things (that people overlook) are very important, perhaps far more important than things that lie outside of experience. In India and elsewhere there were atomistic and Atta denying teachings. Buddha rejected teachings of others. What was lacking was the path to cessation of all suffering which the Buddha has discovered. When He refuted Hindu Atta views he used examples from real life, and showed empirical inconsistency in their views of Atta. Analyzing personality into five aggregates was not done to deny existence of a person, but of constant and happy Atta. The teaching works much better with more reasonable statement that ""The truth is one, there is no second" - Snp 4.12 and that the Buddha did not mislead us such as when speaking conventionally. So how does one reconcile Anatta with all the talk about monk doing this or that, and entire Vinaya Pitaka that talks about people breaking or not breaking precepts, etc? The Buddha spoke the truth and did not mislead us. People that do such and such actions do exist. What doesn't exist is Atta that is constant and happy. Some say that we should not follow all the shoulds that are found in the suttas. But the teaching of that Teacher does have lots of "shoulds". So her shoulds are ok, but not the Buddha's? Why? It is possible to add extra things to meditation such as wrong view of "Self who does things". But just as likely it is possible to add Self view to study as well! One can create a Self that studies the Right Teaching just as much as creating wrong view about meditation. Achievement in study can be valued as much as achievement in meditation (which in reality is not an achievement, one is making idea of Self fade in meditation). One can develop lots of Self view while cooking as well. The Self View depends on clinging toward wrong views, wrong thinking. As we know, one isn't supposed to be thinking all over the place when meditating. Idea of A Self is not required to do things such as meditation. So meditation is less likely place to develop Self view for a knowledgeable person. With best wishes, Alex #117919 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > > Op 25-sep-2011, om 17:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > > > Mindfulness of > > > the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true > > > characteristics.> > > > > This seems to be saying that one is attending the rupas of both > > breath and physical body with mindfulness as they arise for citta > > in attending the breath. So there is at least this aspect of > > attending the actual rupas for development of mindfulness of their > > characteristics. Is this correct? > > > ------- > N: In the ultimate sense there is no physical body. He just attends > to one dhamma at a time, in this case tangible object. But they are the rupas - the dhammas - that are normally associated with physical form, is that correct? Only ultimate > dhammas have the three general characteristics and these should be > known. > It is already difficult to be aware of the ruupa that is hardness > when touching things such as fork and spoon. Breath is a more subtle > tangible object and thus it is even more difficult to attend to its > characteristic. > -------- So that would make sense of experiencing the rupa of the breath at the nose-tip as it is a very specific location to isolate the sensation. > > R: > He > > > contemplates (anupassati): he keeps re-seeing (anu anu passati) with > > > jhana knowledge and with insight knowledge. > > > > Can you help me to understand the nature of "re-seeing" (anu anu > > passati)and what that means? > > > ------- > N: Again and again. Awareness over and over again. > ------- When sati keeps returning to the object 'again and again' do cetasikas like vittakka and sanna play special roles in the "return" to the object? I remember you recently talked about the role of "remembering" as part of the function of mindfulness. Is this accomplished by sati itself or by coordination with sanna? And does vittakka "re-probe" or discover more attributes of the dhamma each time it returns, since vittakka has that probing, investigating, turning-over, "beating" of the object to understand its nature. Would it be right to say that repeated visits of vittakka is what eventually leads to development of vicara? Does it have that kind of progression? Or do vittakka and vicara work together at the same time? > > R: Also, what is jhana knowledge? I think it is more obvious what > > insight knowledge is, but one usually speaks of jhana-citta as an > > expression of samatha, rather than of knowing. I am interested to > > know how jhana knowledge would be understood. > > > ------- > N: Mindfulness of Breath is included in the Application of > Mindfulness of Body (ruupa), because it is an object of > satipa.t.thaana. Objects of jhaana are included, because jhaana can > be a basis for insight. Okay, I see what is meant - I didn't understand it correctly - it is "knowledge of the jhana object" rather than jhana itself "knowing" anything. > When we study the four Tetrads as explained > in the Visuddhimagga we see that both jhaana and insight are being > developed. For jhaana mindfulness and pa~n~naa are essential. One has > to know precisely from the very beginning when the citta is kusala > and when akusala. Is it possible for the subtle object in jhana to be akusala? Or is the object of jhana-citta of any level always kusala? > -------- > > R: > > ...Am I correct that this part is about contemplating breath as > > a concept, and the other passage that I quoted above about the > > "rupas" is contemplating bodily/breath rupas as objects of direct > > mindfulness? > > > ------- > N: In the satipa.t.thaanasutta the subjects are not concepts, it > points to dhammas that have the three general characteristics, even > when the language is conventional, like body, corpses or postures. > The Buddha also used conventional terms to explain ultimate realities. > Contemplation of it as a mere body; read: as mere ruupa. Thank you, that is helpful. Is there a reading of posture that is in terms of rupas? And are the 'corpse' contemplations rupas that are visual object, or are they mental objects that are objects of nama? > -------- > > R: > > ...Here it is stated that both concentration and realization of > > the three characteristics is the goal, through mindfulness of > > the realities appearhing while breathing... > > > > So this seems like direct practice of satipatthana - realizing > > the characteristics through direct mindfulness of paramatha > > dhammas, while at the same time direct development of s > > amatha/concentration. Is this correct? > > > -------- > N: It is better to leave out my words: > because concentration is not the goal. Concentration is not absent, > right concentration accompanies right understanding of the eightfold > Path. But does the concentration play a role, such as helping to fix or locate the object for sati? Or is it just a kusala cetasika that accompanies the sati? > As explained above: someone may develop jhaana, but then jhaana > is base of proximate cause for insight. He must be aware of all > naamas and ruupas appearing through the six doors, jhaanafactors > included, when he has emerged from jhaana. So he contemplates the jhana-factors after the jhana-citta has already passed away? Is there a nimita of the jhana-factors that is object of that insight? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117920 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Ken) - > > In a message dated 9/26/2011 11:22:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > > The sutta quote begins with: > > > > "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil > left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on > oneself; no one can purify another." > > > > KH: My interpretation is: The presently arisen citta can be akusala, in > which case the accompanying cetasikas will also be akusala. Therefore, the > presence of defiling cetasikas will be attributable to citta, not to > anything else (or anyone else). > > > > The same applies when the citta is kusala; its purity is its own doing. > > > > So citta is the leader. > > > > My interpretation gets complicated, however, when we are talking about > Path citta. In that case panna is the leader. So . . . > > > > Moving on to the next stanza: :-) > > > > > "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, > however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon > the good." > > > > KH: "Clearly understanding" refers to panna. Clearly understanding > citta, one is on the way to the final goal. Satipatthana (the mundane right > path) leads to the supramundane path. > > > > Do not neglect satipatthana for the sake of some other path! > > > > That's me done: over to you Robert, and anyone else who wants to come to > the rescue. > > Well, first of all, I would say that your interpretation of the sutta is a > very intelligent one, and that it is not out of line with anything the > sutta says, so I compliment you on that, and appreciate the fact that nothing > you said violated the letter or spirit of the sutta, and in fact explains > it very nicely in paramatha terms. It sheds light on how it applies to the > processes that underlie what the sutta is talking about. > > ============================= > I respectfully disagree with you, Robert. It is indeed so that citta > is the leader in general (and that in the case of the culmination of > examining the 4 foundations of mindfulness, wisdom is), but that entirely misses > the point of the first quoted stanza: "By oneself is evil done; by oneself is > one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. > Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another," and, in > fact, the second stanza continues the meaning of the first. The issues that > Ken raises, while valid and important, are entirely tangential to what the > Buddha was teaching here. This makes me think of the case of an American > history teacher telling her class the story of Paul Revere's ride to warn > about the British approaching, and when asking the class what is to be > learned from this, little Johnny answers "It's that Mr. Revere had a horse." I did point out that Ken's analysis left out the meaning of some of the "conventional" language, and tried to account for that in my own talk about kamma; but I do think he talked intelligently about the underlying elements in the sutta. I was glad that he looked at the order and elements that were talked about in some harmony with the order and elements of the sutta, even if the "conventional" language was not fully accounted for. Best, Rob E. #117921 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----------- > <. . .> > > RE: I'll let you have that rule for yourself, but not for me. <. . .> When there is a conflict between the plain meaning of the > sutta and a commentary, I will go with the sutta. > ------------ > > KH: There you go again - driving me mad - condemning me to a padded cell with Scott as my only companion! :-) > > In future, please say, "I will go with *my understanding of* the sutta." Please don't imply that the rest of us are deliberately choosing to reject the sutta. Well, I'm sorry to put it that way, and to drive you mad, but I do not think that taking a plain sentence as a plain statement is an interpretation. When you take a word like "by oneself" and you interpret it as "citta" that is an interpretation. You are substituting one term for another. To take it literally is not an interpretation or "my understanding," it is what the words actually say. Your interpretation according to Abhidhamma substitutions may be perfectly valid - it may be the real meaning of the sutta, but because you are substituting one set of terms for another, you have to demonstrate that this is the case; in other words, back up your interpretation, which is *not* what the sutta says. I'm not saying you are going "against" the meaning of the sutta, but you are definitely translating it into the terms that you think represent the real meaning. When I take a sutta at "face value" that is *not* an interpretation. It is taking the sutta literally. You may think that is wrong, but it is sticking with what the sutta *actually says.* There is a difference between language and interpretation, and the sutta is written in language, and then interpreted when it is translated into other terms that do not directly account for what was actually said. So my understanding is based directly on the sutta. Your is based on Abhidhamma. For better or worse, that is a meaningful difference. > -------------------- > <. . .> > > RE: Well, first of all, I would say that your interpretation of the sutta is a very intelligent one, and that it is not out of line with anything the sutta says, > -------------------- > > KH: Thank you, it might not be on the same topic, but I will be very happy if it is not out of line. > > ----------------------------- > <. . .> > > RE: It also is a very clear principle of the Buddha's that the main reason for doing > or not doing something is the effect it will have in terms of personal kamma, > rather than the effect it will have on someone else. That also goes along with > your suggestion that citta is self-contained and not subject to outside > influences or influencing others. However, that confuses me a little bit when > it comes to the importance of "good friends" and avoiding the wrong kind of > people, and other negative influences that Buddha has talked about, so that's a > question for me. > ----------------------------- > > KH: A citta's good friends are samma-ditthi, samma-sankhapa, and the other path-factor cetasikas. > > And that's not just my crazy notion; I have heard it from others here. :-) So it's a group crazy notion! :-) Just kidding! > ----------------- > <. . .> > > RE: "let one be intent upon the good" both refers to kusala intention that is always > aiming at promoting kusala, and also seems to implicate the intention to go > forward on the path. > > That's me, both conventional and taking a stab at the paramatha level, for what > it's worth! > ---------------- > > KH: I am half happy to hear it. :-) > > I would say the `intention to go forward on the path' arose in every moment of path progress. But not in any preceding akusala moment. Well no one is saying that an akusala moment would produce a kusala intention, except in the special type of case that Nina has recently been talking about - for instance, where fear -- akusala -- of unpleasant vipaka could motivate kusala behavior, or something like that! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117922 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. off topic response... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > ...People like me and Rob E have an accumulated tendency for affability and volubility when writing... I like these vocabulary words. > but that means people have to dig through an awful lot of whipped cream to get to the strawberries. Sounds tasty to me! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = I know you're not seeking approval, not explicitly anyways (mana etc always are seeking approval for all of us to some degree) but I hope you keep posting and give 'em a hard time, give 'em hugs and kisses, whatever, doesn't matter. Dhamma content is more important than manners. I don't know if I will believe that in 5 minutes, but I believe it at this very moment. No response necessary. > > Metta, > Phil > #117923 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex Your post is too long for me to read carefully and respond to (virya is not predominant at this moment!) but from a quick read through I can see you make some good points. The precepts, for example. I'm sorry that since I'm on i-phone, I can't edit in comments. As for the points I disagree with, I won't get into counter-arguing with you because as Scptt said people have expressed the same understanding (as each other, not as me) to you at many times in many ways and life is short. There is something a bit perverse about your continuing to demand the same xplanations. You know what people are going to say, so why continue to make them say it again and again and again.. ? But can I repeat one specific question? You say the Buddha tells people to strive. How can striving occur except by virya and other dhammas? Thanks Alex. I beg of you to keep your answer as concise as possible. Metta, Phil #117924 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon dhammasaro Good friend Howard, ditto on Dr. Hun's excellent wishes... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > I am very happy about the good news. > > May you live a very long healthy, happy and useful life! <...> #117925 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:13 am Subject: The Sandcastle of Expectation... bhikkhu5 Friends: Expectation is bound to give Disappointment! Whenever and wherever there is expectation, there is also hoping & longing! Whenever and wherever there is hoping & longing, there is also craving... Whenever and wherever there is craving, there is also suffering! This is the 2nd Noble Truth: Craving causes suffering... Whenever & wherever there is neither expectation, nor hoping, nor longing, nor any form of craving present, how can there ever be any suffering? This is the 3rd Noble Truth: Absence of craving ends all suffering... <...> Discontent Disappointment is NOT caused by the outside world! 'Loving' and 'liking' mixed with expectation => passion => suffering! 'Loving' and 'liking' without expectation = friendliness => elevation! These 2 forms of "love" lookalike, but are VERY different in outcome! Expectation is an often subconscious diluted derivative of greed, which nevertheless retains the ability to ruin any relationship and any life by inducing the mischievous and treacherous mental state called discontent! This discontent is NOT caused by the external object as often believed, but by the very 'own' internal hidden prejudgement inherent in expectation! About Expectation: Always Different Awareness of Emerging Expectation Helps: If one notices expectation right when it arises, and also when it persists, this enables reflecting: "Now future suffering is created and maintained!"! This in itself gradually will reduce this diluted derivative of painful craving. <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #117926 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:21 pm Subject: Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon szmicio Hi Howard, > Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. In 6 months > I'll have a follow-up cat scan, but the surgeon said we should not worry, and > he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all > will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) L: That's good. But staying with that topic, dont you think that the worst aspect of death is a severe pain? Adam told me in London, that there are things worst than death, he mentioned opiates as a girl that time. He states they are much more better than having a girl or being in love. He always says that's his love. But he told to himself at the end: It also cheats on you :P I liked this monolog. Best wishes Lukas #117927 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:57 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A few issues dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may... What good friend Scott wrote reminds me of page 99 of, "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket. ...objects through the senses, is appearing at this moment, and thus it can be known. Among the four "Applications of Mindfulness" the third one is "Mindfulness of Citta" [2]. The first type of citta mentioned in this section is citta with attachment (saragacitta). Sati can arise and be aware of the characteristic of the citta with attachment and clinging that appears time and again in daily life. If sati does not arise it will not be known that, when there is seeing of an object, cittas with attachment and clinging to what is seen arise, succeeding one another very rapidly. If pafifia knows the characteristics of dhammas which naturally appear defilements can eventually be eradicated. Paiifia can know the difference between the characteristic of vipiikacitta, the result of past kamma, and the characteristic of kusala citta and of akusala citta, that is, defilement. Kusala citta and akusala citta of the degree of kamma performed at the present time, can condition the arising of vipiikacitta in the future. We should not only know the characteristic of vipaka which is more obvious, such as in the case of a pleasant or an unpleasant event, but also the characteristic of vipaka which is the experience through the senses of the manifold objects in daily life. If we understand that vipakacitta which arises is the result of kamma we performed ourselves, can we still be angry with other people or blame them for the vipaka we receive? In the Scriptures we read about events in the lives of people of old who received different vipakas. Also in the present time different events occur which clearly show that each person has to receive vipaka, the result of past kamma, but we cannot predict in which way it will appear. For example, a building may collapse and crush the owner so that he dies. A bomb is not the cause that the building collapses and crushes that man. His death is not caused by being shot or assaulted. Kamma performed in the past is the cause for receiving results through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue or the body sense. Therefore, one should not be angry with someone else or blame him for the vipaka one receives. Sati can be aware of the characteristic of the dhamma that is vipakacitta, not a being, person or self. Thus one can come to understand that the moment of vipaka is the result of past kamma, different from the moments of attachment, aversion and ignorance, or the moments of kusala dhammas. The kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas that arise are causes in the present that will condition the arising of results in the future. The things outside as well as the rupas of the body that appear to seeing and are perceived as being tall, short, dark or light, appear actually only at the moment they impinge on the eye sense. If there is no eye sense and we do not see, we cannot think of shape and form, of tall, short, dark and light we take for our body. Therefore, in reality, one's own body and all the things outside do not belong to anyone. They appear just at the moment seeing-consciousness arises and then they fall away very rapidly. It is the same with sound that only appears when it impinges on the ear sense, and then falls away completely. It does not belong to anybody. By being aware of the characteristics of realities, just as they naturally appear in daily life, the wrong view can be eradicated which takes realities for a being, a person or self. End of page 99. Sincere warm thanks... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Phil, > > Ph: "But you're talking about the concept of a person, I was thinking about the concept (as it must be here) of dhammas operating. The vipaka of harsh sound arises, conditioning bodily consciousness with unpleasant feeling as well as hearing consciousness with neutral feeling, at different moments (if I understand correctly)..." > > Scott: This is why thoughts of person confuse things. Someone else's vipaka is a function of past kamma that arose in that particular 'stream' (don't take this term too far). As far as 'the other person' or 'you' are concerned in this conceptual stage play, it is only harsh sound. Thinking and sa~n~na, etc. always give rise to thoughts of an other. > > All conditioned dhammas function in the same way no matter 'where' they arise. They are not-self. There is no 'other' arising anywhere in any given moment of consciousness. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. ............................................. rest deleted. #117928 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon nilovg Hi Howard, I thought of you and the Tuesday visit, and was just wondering. Good news and I am glad. Today Lodewijk is at the urological surgeon and I expect he will say the same: back in six months. One always has to come back. As Christine suggests, it is good to remember that life is so short, Nina. Op 27-sep-2011, om 22:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. #117929 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects make citta evident nilovg Dear Phil, Op 27-sep-2011, om 21:26 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Great sentence from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "The different > objects that appear through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the > tongue, the body sense and the mind-door make it evident that there > is citta, that is, the reality which experiences, the element which > experiences." ------ N: Yes, if there were no citta they could not appear. Nina. #117930 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > I am very happy about the good news. > > May you live a very long healthy, happy and useful life! > > with metta and respect, > Han > > --- On Wed, 9/28/11, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, all - > > Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. In 6 months > I'll have a follow-up cat scan, but the surgeon said we should not worry, and he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) I am very happy to hear this too! Somehow I missed the original post with this good news. Best Regards, Rob E. "another damned meditator" - - - - - - - - - - - - - #117931 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects make citta evident philofillet Hi Nina > > Great sentence from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "The different > > objects that appear through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the > > tongue, the body sense and the mind-door make it evident that there > > is citta, that is, the reality which experiences, the element which > > experiences." > ------ > N: Yes, if there were no citta they could not appear. The next sentence: "We can know the characteristic of citta, the element tgat experiences and which arises and falls away, because different objects appear. Thus we can know that the world arises and falls away each monent." I know that the answer is "no rule" but sonetimes when I'm listening I get the feeling A. Sujin stresses understanding the characteristic of nama over the characteristic of rupa. But no rule, of course. To know nama from rupa, our understanding of both (one at a time, not together) must develop. Metta, Phil p.s I will have a chance to talk with Khun D again, I have enough days off remaining to go to KK again! #117932 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:13 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Alex & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >A: Sure, I don't understand how one can take a phrase: "strive with all your might" and make it mean "DO NOT strive with all your might or you will be just controlling realities and developing Self View". As if one doesn't run a risk at developing self view in daily life. Of course it is very hard to understand how and why should a statement be taken in exact opposite of what it says. > > Don't hold your breath waiting for a direct answer to this question, since it is obvious that the answer is "yes, Buddha did make direct statements about striving and right effort." ..... S: Do you take the following comment of the Buddha's literally? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.111.than.html "And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?" "If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi." .... S: Reading this on its own, would you follow the Buddha's example and kill the student who doesn't get the Dhamma training? Of course, the meaning is elaborated on in the sutta. In other cases, the meaning is elaborated on in other suttas by the Buddha or his disciples, or in other parts of the Tipitaka or in the commentaries. In the very first two suttas taught by the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Middle Way, the explanation of the khandhas as being anatta and not in anyone's control are elaborated on by the Buddha. Effort, viriya is included in sankhara khandha - a conditioned dhamma that can never be made to arise by one's will. All the teachings have to be understood in this light. Metta Sarah ====== #117933 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Scott, Op 27-sep-2011, om 22:58 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > > N: "Not by thinking about it...think of how you would like to be > treated yourself, and then you can better understand how to treat > others. You would not like to hear harsh speech and this can remind > you not to use harsh speech to others." > > Scott: Okay sure, yet this message is more or less a definition for > worldly empathy which is fine in principle and present less often > than not. And the message of 'do unto others' etc. is not unknown > in the ordinary world either. > > The complexity of things ought to suggest that there is much more > to it, else of what use a Buddha? A very important question > remains: What is the role of the content of thinking in the > development of, in this case, metta? We agree that it is 'not by > thinking about it' yet above you go on to describe just that - some > thoughts about it. > ------- N: It is thinking of another being, a living being is the object of metta. What is essential: thinking with kusala citta, with metta. Thinking and satipa.t.thaana can alternate. The Vis. text is stated in order to help those who have no idea of what metta is. It does not matter that also other religions think similarly. Metta is metta, no matter what religion one may adhere to. ------- > > S: Hearing 'harsh speech' may amount to thinking that arises after > the experience of vipaaka, for example. What is 'harsh' for me may > not be for someone else, and may not have even been intimated by > akusala in the other. Think of those who actually heard the words > of a Buddha but were unaffected. Many different possibilities exist > to explain such an event. > ------ N: Sure. But in general we may know what harsh, unpleasant speech is. ------- > > > Scott: Yes, I remember this. I recall it was about dosa but it > amounts to the same dilemma. Should I post if I think I am too > angry? Should I post if I think I don't know enough? Should I post > if I think I know more than someone else? And what is 'too much > worry?' What is the optimal amount? Do you see what I'm getting at > here? > > N: "...Rob E likened my mail to eating chocolate ;-)) I was so > pleased!..." > > And why not be!? Rob E. thought my posts were 'mean.' Should I be > displeased? So there is attachment and aversion. You say, post any > way, and so we all do. Food for thought, as it were. > ------- N: I like to add something. When we think endlessly about was this kusala or akusala, was it conceit or dosa, Kh Sujin would say: it is still yours. We think stories about them and take them for self. Only after the first stage of tender insight there is more understanding of cetasikas as just naama, and also the difference between citta and cetasika is understood. Thus, thinking so much may not help, but also thinking is conditioned. (No need to answer). Nina. > #117934 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Alex (Rob E & all), You wrote to Scott: --- On Mon, 26/9/11, truth_aerator wrote: A:>So what do you think the Buddha meant about striving >In *many* quotes such as this: >"Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html ..... S: Just looking at the Pali: ‘‘... Seyyathaapi, bhikkhave, aadittacelo vaa aadittasiiso vaa tasseva celassa vaa siisassa vaa nibbaapanaaya adhimatta.m chanda~nca vaayaama~nca ussaaha~nca ussolhi~nca appa.tivaani~nca sati~nca sampaja~n~na~nca kareyya; evameva.m kho, bhikkhave, tena bhikkhunaa tesa.myeva paapakaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m pahaanaaya adhimatto chando ca vaayaamo ca ussaaho ca usso.lhii ca appa.tivaanii ca sati ca sampaja~n~na~nca kara.niiya.m. S: For the last part, it literally says something like: "by that bhikkhu for the abandoning of those evil, unwholesome dhammas, great chanda, (right) effort .... sati, sampaja~n~na should be 'done'(kara.niiya.m). >A:Is He saying that we should NOT strive? Does it say that we should NOT have wholesome desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, etc? .... S: I'd forget the word "striving" here. Certainly wholesome interest (chanda), effort, sati, sampajanna must be developed. "By that bhikkhu..." is a conventional expression, just as "a discourse by the Buddha", or "Ananda taught......" are expressions to differentiate particular cittas, cetasikas and rupas. >A:Is it reasonable to assume that the Buddha meant totally opposite of what He said in the sutta? .... S: It means just what is said in the sutta, but whether the words are understood correctly or not depends on whether the great (right) effort, awareness, understanding and so on are taken as being made by a literal Being or whether they are understood as being conditioned dhammas which arise when namas and rupas are understood and the urgency of developing them has been realised. "should be 'done'(kara.niiya.m)" reminds me of the Metta kara.niiya.m Sutta which begins with: "KaranÄ"yam atthakusalena" "this is what ought to be done by one skilled in kusala" You would say here that the words again should be taken literally to show that it is One or Person who should DO or STRIVE. In the last stanza and its commentary (from the Lovingkindness Discourse in Khuddakapaa.tha (Minor Readings), as I wrote before (#47511) we read: "And now, since lovingkindness is near to [wrong] view of self because it has creatures for its object, he therefore completed the teaching with the following stanza: "But he that traffics not with views Is virtuous with perfected seeing Till purged of greed for sense-desires He will surely come no more to any womb." "He did this as a preventative against [their straying into] the thicket of [speculative] views (see Mi 8) by showing those bhikkhus how the Noble Plane is reached through making that same loving-kindness jhana the basis for insight. "Its meaning is this. After emerging from the abiding in lovingkindness jhana, which was specified (detailed) thus 'This is Divine Abiding here, they say', [he discerns] the [non-material-form] ideas there [in that jhana] consisting in thinking and exploring and the rest [S: i.e jhana factors][which he defines as 'name'.][S: namas]Then, following on the defining, etc, of these [jhana factors as 'name'], he discerns the ideas of [material] form there, [which he defines as 'form'.][S: rupas] "By means of this delimitation of name-and-form 'he traffics not with views (di.t.thi~n ca anupagamma), [avoiding that by discerning] in the way stated thus 'A heap of mere determinations; No creature can be found herein' (S i 135), till he eventually becomes virtuous (siilavaa) with the kind of virtue that is supramundane since he is now perfected (sampanno) in the right view belonging to the Path of Stream Entry, which is called seeing (dassanena), and which is associated with that supramundane virtue" Later in the conclusion... "There the bhikkhus maintained lovingkindness in being, making that the basis, they established insight [into the three general characteristics of impermanence, suffering and not-self,] till all of them reached Arahantship...." S: In other words, it is only through the "delimitation" or understanding of namas and rupas that we will be free from trafficking in wrong views and there will be the understanding of 'A heap of mere determinations; No creature can be found herein'. Right effort, but no Being who makes the effort. Right chanda, sati, panna and so on, but no One who 'strives' to make them arise. Metta which may be developed to jhana and may be the basis of insight, but again no Person who can make this happen. Metta, Sarah ===== #117935 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:00 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Rob E (& Pt & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >Pt: Further i wonder if "harsh" speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person, etc. > >R: This is just an idea, but I would guess that harsh speech is like killing, in the sense that the underlying intention causes a different degree of completion of action. I don't know what type of citta underlies harsh speech, but I think that like killing the reason the speech is harsh is that the intention is to attack the other person to some extent. .... S: Yes, you make a good point. Like killing, it is only akusala kamma patha (completed kamma action), when there is not only the underlying intention to "attack" or speak harshly, but the speech is actually made (verbally or in writing!) and is 'received'. If one just had a rave in the forest without anyone to hear, it would be akusala, but not akusala kamma patha. Likewise, if one kept quiet with lots of dosa, but didn't "attack", again, just akusala cittas. So, just with the killing, stealing, lying or sexual misconduct, we cannot say the other being, i.e the other cittas, are irrelevant. What we can say is that, in their case, the hearing of unpleasant sounds, the seeing of unpleasant visible objects, the death or injury which may occur - all are the results of their kamma. .... >R:If the harsh speech is completed, it both comes as the result of that intention, and, like killing, also has a harsh effect on the other person. But I think the important point for oneself and for kamma, as in killing, is that the intention has been strong enough to result in the harsh action. ... S: Exactly. As you say, a thought of harming by killing or harsh speech is one thing, the act is another, involving stronger intention. And then, just as in the case of killing, other factors make a difference such as the size of the sentient being, the noble qualities and so on (as to how much effort is involved), so with speech, many factors are involved. Abusing the Buddha would be much worse akusala kamma patha than abusing a lesser Noble, and that much worse than abusing a scoundrel. ... > > I am not sure if sarcasm is always "harsh speech." Sometimes it can be playful or questioning of what has been said, or mildly teasing in a way that has not disconnected from the relationship to the other person. At other times it is clearly hostile. I think that can show a different underlying intention. .... S: Probably cittas from more mildly akusala (with lobha or dosa) to very strongly akusala. I tend to think that it's a bad habit in any form, though I agree that when it's just mild teasing as occurs in one's family or with close friends it isn't usually intended to hurt or harm and may just be a little fun. Even then, I think we need to be careful. When it's hostile and intended to belittle the other person, I think it's harmful and a kind of harsh speech. "Sarcasm: the lowest form of wit" is what we were taught when we were young and I think there's something in it. Just my ideas..... Metta Sarah ===== #117936 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:05 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Phil, (Pt & all) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > >Pt: 3. For that matter, does thinking classify as an event-producing-vipaka at some point? There's that formulation "good thoughts, words and deeds" so I was wondering if that's in reference to kamma/vipaka? ... S: Just thinking - accumulates kusala/akusala, but not yet kamma patha which can produce vipaka. ... > Ph: Well, we have mental branch of akusala kamma patha, thoughts of ill eill and harming, thoughts of ...damn, can't remember the word, wanting things of others. And wrong view. But wouldn't that mean we are constantly performing akusala kamma patha? Only an especially petnicious wrong view? .... S: No, not at all. If it's just wrong view, but with no action, such as harming another, not akusala kamma patha. The wrong view has to condition deeds and speech. Metta Sarah ===== #117937 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:07 pm Subject: Re: A few issues ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: Interesting, when does the lobha arise, with the speaking of sarcastic words. or afterwards when getting pleasure out of what one wrote? Who knows, case by case. pt: Yes, I think as Scott mentioned in another post, lot of different cittas involved, and yes, case by case as you say. I was just wondering about sarcasm in simple terms, not necessarily only when writing posts, which is a lot more complex. I also think I was confusing matters - i.e. jumbling together sarcasm and irony. I think if we just look at sarcasm, then I'd agree with you and Scott that it has to do mostly with dosa, whereas involving irony into the mix would be more akin to what I was thinking of - pleasant feeling with mana, I think. Anyway, confusion is the risk when using conventional terms instead of abhidhamma... > Ph: There can of course be affectionate sarcasm, that's different. pt: Would that be like teasing that couples often resort to? I tend to think that's mostly mana with pleasant feeling, too. But again, I might be confusing things with conventional terms. Best wishes pt #117938 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:28 pm Subject: Re: A few issues ptaus1 Hi Scott, > > Pt: "Hm...Maybe I have something wrong...disliking smth the other person says or does...it comes with pleasant feeling...with mana...i wonder if 'harsh' speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person..." > Scott: Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe you still don't like my style of posting. pt: Generally, I really appreciate your posts when it comes to dhamma points. As for the style, I agree with KenH in the sense that long-term posters should be able to speak to eachother here freely because they are familiar with eachother's styles and so are less likely to take directness for rudeness, or politeness for fakeness, etc. However, when it comes to newcomers, who are neither familiar with our posting styles, nor with the particular dhamma points often discussed here, I often think that a kind and diplomatic response is needed. Which is why I generally prefer to leave the initial responses to newcomers here to Nina, Sarah, Phil, Jon, etc. Their responses are generally more kinder and clearer in terms of dhamma than mine. > S: I don't mind the way I post - whether I enjoy it, or am conceited. pt: ok > S: And I leave the other to his or her reactions. pt: Hm, I tend to think along similar lines, and connie and Phil have mentioned the same, however, I'm not entirely sure how to discuss this issue, I have to think for a bit. > Scott: In the morning I'll look into Pa.t.thaana to find some textual support for these suppositions of yours. I'm pretty sure dosa is in the mix. pt: Ok, looking into patthana would be great, thanks. Just have in mind that I was probably confusing matters a bit, I think I was jumbling sarcasm together with irony, as just mentioned to Phil. But, I'm still thinking there must be mana somewhere in there. Best wishes pt #117939 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:31 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Phil & Rob E, > > Ph: Intetesting "damn" above because there were cittas with dosa (and awareness of the unpleasant mental feeling) about not being able to remember words recently. And the "damn" is there as evidence of good example of speech intimation? Or physical since I wrote it? Let's say I spoke it. Can speech intimation be the words themselves, or only tone of voice? What is the relation between speech intimation and harsh speech that is akusala kamma patha? .... The speech intimation, vaci-vi~n~natti, refers to rupas involved in the conveying of the message. The words are concepts thought about and articulated. Speech intimation arises in a kalapa with the eight inseparable rupas and sadda, sound. The citta which conditions the speech sounds/words, produces this kind of kalapa as it arises. Obviously, in the case of the written word, it would be bodily intimation (kaya vi~n~natti) rather than speech intimation which is involved. In this case the citta conveys its meaning through bodily expression when typing. Here's a quote from "Survey" by A.Sujin: "When citta is the condition for sound, such as speech sound or the uttering of other sounds that convey a specific meaning, citta produces the ruupa that is speech intimation, vaci-vi~n~natti ruupa. When this arises it is the condition for the ruupas that are the means of articulation, such as the lips, to produce speech sound. Without the arising of speech intimation it would not be possible to speak or emit other sounds which convey a specific meaning. Bodily intimation and speech intimation are asabhaava ruupas, ruupas without their own distinct nature, which arise and fall away together with the citta that produces them." See more in the appendix on the different kalapas, Phil. S: Asabhava rupas - not apparent to sati and panna now, because no sabhava that can be known. ... >R: I like these questions, so I keep jumping in. I think that writing can relay harsh speech - maybe it should be called 'harsh writing' but it seems like words/written concepts-patterns can come across with harshness. I wonder if the harsh objects of writing would be considered visual object and then mental object? .... S: Yes, harsh speech or harsh bodily action. The objects of the cittas are concepts. However, as seen by others (or when viewing the screen by 'our' seeing), it is visible object only which is seen. Thinking thinks about the visible objects with kusala or akusala cittas. ... R:>I don't know what I'm talking about but it seems to make sense that the harshness registers in the mental reaction to written concepts and patterns, which are visual objects. .... S: Depending on one's accumulations, there is a reaction to what is seen with different kinds of cittas. Sanna (memory/perception) arises with each citta, marking what is seen. This is how we know what the particular visible objects 'mean'. Each visible object is different and sanna remembers what has been seen and marked before. Good chat, guys! I'm learning as I think out loud and tap the keyboard with all those kaya-vi~n~natti rupas. Metta Sarah ====== #117940 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:41 pm Subject: Re: A few issues ptaus1 Hi connie, > > pt: Further i wonder if "harsh" speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person, etc. anyway gotta get off the train now. thanks > > > > c: for what it's worth, i think the harsh speech thing is part of the right speech formulation whereas the training precept only deals with 'false' speech / deceptiveness. pt: hm, you might be right in technical terms. Anyway, in general terms, there was the sutta that Bhikkhu Samahita just quoted, and the bit relating to speech was: *** sutta quote: "Lying, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the weakest result of lying brings future false accusations, blame, condemnation, despise and evil-minded complaints! Tale-bearing, slander, divisive speech of gossip & malicious rumours committed, carried out, & often done, leads to Hell, animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the slightest result of tale-bearing brings discord, disagreement and splitting conflicts even with one's closest friends, family and associates. Harsh, hurting and aggressive speech, committed, carried out, and often done, leads to rebirth in Hell, rebirth in the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the smallest result of abusive language echoes back future relentless, rude and ruthless rebuke, vicious verbal scolding and insulting insinuations! Vain and empty gossip, prattle, and hearsay committed, carried out, & often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the least result of vain and void prattle brings future hearing of unacceptable and disagreeable stories, foul-mouthed speech, & offensive unpleasant words!" *** end sutta quote: pt: So when it comes to "harsh, hurting and aggressive speech", which is then also qualified as "abusive language" - I'd tend to think it includes sarcasm, which imo is also hurting and abusive. > c: Yes, tho, it's the underlying citta that matters... and whether i take offense or rejoice, what's that got to do with anyone else - isn't that just according to my accumulations / the way my world rocks? I can't hold you accountable for that. L pt: Yes, as just mentioned to Scott, I need to think about this one for a bit. I'm not sure it's all quite that simple. Best wishes pt #117941 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:45 pm Subject: Re: A few issues ptaus1 Hi Phil, > > pt: 1. Cetana that accompanies a citta with lobha and pleasant feeling will produce akusala vipaka, right? Damn it, that doesn't feel fair at all - to feel good when it's happening, but then the vipaka not to feel good. In fact it's going to feel bad (if at body-sense) and indifferent at best (if at other senses). That really sucks. As Sarah's kid has aptly put it. > > Ph: What has always struck me as unfair or paradoxical is that kusala kamma conditions vipaka that - being pleasant object - is bound (because of the thickness of our defilements) to be accumulated as akusala lobha rooted citta at the very least or can even lead to akusala kamma patha. pt: Yes, I generally summarise the above as - happiness sucks. > Ph: It shows how hard it must be to get out of samsara. Of course there is the possibility of the development of satipatthana. pt: Yes Best wishes pt #117942 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:11 pm Subject: Harsh speech related quotes sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Dear Friends, Some past quotes I was referring to with regard to harsh speech and kamma patha, relevant to our recent discussions: 1. From Atthasaalinii, Courses of Immoral Action: "Teachers and spiritual guides sometimes say of their pupils: 'What are we to do with these shameless, reckless lads? Turn them out!' and yet they wish that they may attain and accomplish. But as words are not harsh if the heart be tender, so are they not gentle, just because speech is soft. The words of one desirous of killing: 'Let me sleep in comfort!' are not soft; because of the harshness of thought the words are harsh. Harsh speech is proportionate to the virture of one concerning whom harsh words are spoken. The three consittutent factors of this offense are: -Another to be abused, -angry thought and -the abuse." ..... 2. Also from Atthasaalinii: " 'Slander' means calumnious speech which, by being said to another, reduces to nothing the love which that person, or the speaker bears at his own heart to a third person... The volition of one with a corrupt mind, producing the bodily and vocal effort to sow the seed of discord among others, or to endear oneself to others is termed the volition of calumnious speech. It is a smaller or greater offence, according as the virtue of the person whom he separates is smaller or greater. There are four constituent factors of this crime: (1) Other persons to be divided; (2) the purpose: 'they will be separated,' or the desire to endear oneself to another: 'I shall become dear and intimate'; (3) the corresponding effort; (4) the communication. But when there is no rupture among others, the offence does not amount to a complete course; it does so only when there is rupture." .... 3. CMA Guide to #22 Unwholesome Kamma "Generally occurring through the door of the body (kaayadvaara): In relation to action, the doors (dvaara) are the medium through which kamma is performed. The door of the body is bodily intimation (kaayavi~n~natti), a type of mind-produced material phenomenon by which a person expresses, through the medium of the body, a volition arisen in the mind. The expression 'generally occurring' (baahullavuttito) is used because such actions as killing and stealing can also be done by speech, i.e by command, yet even in such cases these actions are still consdiered bodily kamma. "The door of speech (vaciidvaara), similarly, denotes vocal intimation(vacivi~n~natti), the mind-originated material phenomenon by means of which volition is expressed verbally. Though such actions as false speech, etc, may also be done bodily, i.e. by writing or by hand signals, because their main medium of execution is the door of speech, they are still considered verbal kamma." .... 4. From Atthasaalinii on Path Consciousness, p.296ff "..So he who commits the fourfold misconduct of speech by any volition is said to trespass over the boundary. When the abstinence belonging to this supramundane Path has arisen, it does not allow (this volition) to trespass over the boundary - hence 'not to trespass over the boundary'....Finally. 'to destroy the causeway.' that is 'he breaks down the causeway.' the meaning is that it destroys the base, the cause of the fourfold misconduct of speech; for that condition is here intended by causeway......." .... 5. From Vism XIX,20 "There is no doer of a deed Or one who reaps the deed’s result; Phenomena alone flow on- No other view than this is right." **** "There is no kamma in result Nor does result exist in kamma; Though they are void of one another, There is no fruit without the kamma." **** Metta Sarah ====== #117943 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:17 pm Subject: Re: Reflection on disadvantages of akusala: when? Now! No, when??? sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Dear Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: As you say, we don't know what conditions will unfold, but I agree with the friend's principal that killing is not a responsibility or support. > >R: I guess the problem for me is when there doesn't seem to be a choice between allowing harm and causing harm. It seems that allowing harm is just as bad as causing it. For instance, if someone is attacking a child with a knife, just to give an unpleasant example, is your responsibility to stop the person with the knife, even though in doing so you may hurt or kill him, or to refrain from any violence and let the child be killed? ..... S: I think it always comes back to the moment, to the cittas. It depends on conditions what will happen. Kusala is kusala, akusala is akusala. We tend to be very good at justifying our anger, our akusala deeds and so on. We also tend to speculate about various scenarios and forget about the undersanding of the present cittas now! .... > > Obviously what I would do ideally would be to defend the child without hurting the attacker, but that is not always possible. .... S: Ideally, kusala cittas and metta prompted actions:-) Again, I enjoyed your examples of non-harming, especially the gang one. Some kusala vipaka there! Metta Sarah ==== #117944 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:23 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Rob E, > >S: One day this mighty planet earth will explode in a gigantic burst of fire, > > be completely destroyed, and exist no more. But there will be no end of > > Misery for beings who, obstructed by Ignorance and addicted by Craving, > > are hurrying, even running and hastening from birth to repeated death in > > this round of rebirths... This I have now explained to you! > > > S: I think that says it all... > >R: Thanks for quoting that, Sarah, that certainly answers my question on the eventual end of at least our local rupas! Of course I thought to myself "Well if they are hurrying through more rounds of birth and death and the world is gone, where will they go?" .... S: Plenty of other realms to hurry and run to! .... > > But I like Buddha's tone in that passage - almost sarcastic on his part, that these beings are "...hurrying, even running and hastening from birth to repeated death..." I'm glad to see that in his subtle way, the Buddha had a good sense of humor. ... S: Shock, horror, the Buddha uttering sarcastic speech and with a sense of humor!! I don't think so:-))) Just expressing the Truth about Samsara and the endless rounds. > >R: I hope you have a good weekend too. Hope you're back to some decent green tea after your trip! ... S: Thx, Rob.....it's just one long trip from citta to citta, realm to realm from moment to moment, one doorway to another. And yes, some decent green tea gives the illusion of making it more bearable:-)) Metta Sarah ====== #117945 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:34 pm Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >R: I guess in the Buddhist world we could say "Life is but a nimitta" from now on. >R: Thanks, Sarah. I wonder, since the nimittas are concepts, is there any sense of how long they last, or can this not be said about a concept? ... S: If we are referring to sankhara nimitta (as we have been), i.e nimitta of paramattha dhammas, sankhara dhammas, then we cannot say they are concepts. They are 'reflections' or 'images' of realities and those realities arise and fall away all the time. If we are referring to nimittas as concepts, for example, as objects of jhana or in 'nimitta anubyanjana' (signs and details) as thought about, then they are concepts and cannot be said to arise and fall away. ... >R:Do they have a number of moments for which they are entertained by citta in order to be more closely understood than a fleeting dhamma? ... S: Take 'sound'. it is experienced by the cittas through the ear-door and then by at least one mind-door process as nimitta of sound. Understanding can arise (in theory) in any process, but if there's understanding of the characteristic of a dhamma now, such as sound, there's no concern about which moment, which citta, which door-way etc. ... > > I ask this since it seems that the nimitta lasts longer and thus gives the cittas a chance to get more information about the dhammas through understanding the nimittas. ... S: I understand your point and while I think it's true to say that a dhamma must be repeatedly experienced in order for awareness to be aware of it, I don't think it's helpful to think about "nimitta lasts longer" as this is bound to be an idea, a story about nimitta, rather than the characteristic of a reality. (Ask Jon this one when you write to him sometime as he'd give a better answer) Metta Sarah ===== #117946 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:38 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Rob E (& Scott), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >S: Always fun chatting to you.... but then I'm spared the sarco!! > > Each according to his kamma... .... S: True! And according to one's accumulations as to whether one gets engaged in it:-) ... > Anyway, I think Scott enjoys it. ... S: Perhaps. Always a few masochists around! Sounds like another justification of the sarco cittas to me!! He might say the same about some of his comments to you. Metta Sarah ==== #117947 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Can actions rooted in lobha condition kusala? sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: Just namas and rupas, however described, however "bundled up"..... >and any nama, any rupa, can be the object of satipatthana. > >================================================== > >R: And things like anapanasati, 4 postures, 4 elements, 10 stages of decomposition, 31 (or 32) bodyparts, etc. > > Not to mention aging of the body, sickness, death and kamma which can lead to the Arhatship. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html .... S: Again, all pointing to namas and rupas. Take the posture of walking - just elements as explained in the commentary. Without such elements, no idea of walking. "Because of that this yogi knows thus: If there arises the thought, 'I shall go,' that thought produces the process of oscillation; the process of oscillation produces expression (the bodily movement which indicates going and so forth). The moving on of the whole body through the diffusion of the process of oscillation is called going." From the subcommetary: "Produces the process of oscillation. Brings about the group of materiality with the quality of oscillation in excess. This group of materiality is that of the pure octad consisting of the Four Great Primaries [mahabhuta] symbolized by earth, water, fire and air, and the four derived from these: color, smell, taste and nutritive essence [pathavi apo tejo vayo vanna gandha rasa oja]" Metta Sarah ====== #117948 From: Vince Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon cerovzt@... Howard wrote: > the surgeon said we should not worry, and > he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all > will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) congratulations for the good news :) best Vince #117949 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Online Now Send IM Hi Scott, --- On Wed, 28/9/11, scottduncan2 wrote: >Scott: Now you are beginning to sound like me. Ha ha. .... Sarah: That's a concern! J/K. I'm glad to see you smiling too! .... > My 'practice' isn't to come across in a self-righteous and false fashion for appearance sake. I do work over the posts I write. I don't believe in false kindness. I don't like winky guys and the like. So I don't have a 'practice' of writing to please. This is how I write. .... Sarah: Everyone has their own style for sure. I'd rather stick to discussing speech and other topics as dhammas if you don't mind. ... >Scott: I work in a busy out-patient psychiatry department and with a very wide range of characters, some of whom would take a mile if you gave them an inch, so sometimes yes I speak kindly, but certainly not all the time - and for good reason. .... Sarah: Understood, I've also worked in psychiatric centres in rough areas of London, also with a lot of delinquent adolescents over the years. Even when speaking firmly and sometimes loudly, the cittas can still be with metta, with the well-being of the others at heart, can't they? I think we've agreed on all this. I think that metta never hurts at all. Great to be able to discuss Dhamma with you again, Scott. Metta Sarah ====== #117950 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Sarah, Sarah: "...Understood, I've also worked in psychiatric centres in rough areas of London...Even when speaking firmly and sometimes loudly, the cittas can still be with metta, with the well-being of the others at heart, can't they? I think we've agreed on all this. I think that metta never hurts at all..." Scott: Agreed, whether in Edmonton, London, or in ethereal space, cittas *can* be with metta (when they are). The style of speech does not necessarily indicate the mental factors which are operative. Sincerely, Scott. #117951 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "It is thinking of another being, a living being is the object of metta. What is essential: thinking with kusala citta, with metta... Metta is metta, no matter what religion one may adhere to." Scott: I was wanting to clarify. Citta with metta takes a living being as object. Is this statement meant to be synonymous with the phrase 'thinking with kusala citta?' If so, can you elaborate the similarity; if not can you elaborate the difference? Sincerely, Scott. #117952 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:54 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 pt, pt: "...long-term posters should be able to speak to each other here freely because they are familiar with each other's styles and so are less likely to take directness for rudeness, or politeness for fakeness, etc." Scott: Not always true; words on a page without context allow for a lot of creative thinking about the other, and this goes on even in when 'live-in-person,' all the time. Since self and other are always construed entities of thought it stands to reason. pt: "However, when it comes to newcomers..." Scott: Some 'newcomers' are inveterate internet posters, as you know, and are quite used to the lay of the land and quite capable of handling themselves. Not a worry. pt: "Ok, looking into patthana would be great, thanks. Just have in mind that I was probably confusing matters a bit, I think I was jumbling sarcasm together with irony, as just mentioned to Phil. But, I'm still thinking there must be mana somewhere in there." Scott: Still lost in it (Pa.t.thaana, that is), and the Guide. Does mana become apparent to you when you post? It does for me too, so it must be somewhere in the mix. How can it not be? Wouldn't it be a function of rudimentary satipa.t.thaana when these various mental factors become apparent in the course of a day? It strikes me that satipa.t.thaana is a linear process, given the natural arising and falling away of dhammas and the point at which operative consciousness and mental factors naturally take an object. It also strikes me that it is a complex, non-linear process when it comes to predicting the nature of the dhammas that come after; these are not so predictable and this is the nature of conditionality. Sincerely, Scott. #117953 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - Thanks so much! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/27/2011 6:41:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cjforsyth1@... writes: Hello Howard, This is good news! And it is great for meditators to have a little Samvega-vatthu to liven up their practice. May you live long and may all good things come to you! with metta #117954 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/27/2011 6:45:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: KH: I don't believe the Dhamma does distinguish between the mind states of one stream and those of another. The Dhamma says *all* conditioned dhammas are anicca dukkha and anatta. So why would it bother to make distinctions? ==================================== Believe what you want, Ken, but the Buddha distinguished among people (as do you and all folks who are not insane), and he even spoke of each of us being heir to our own kamma. In any case, read what the Buddha actually said in the quoted material. It is perfectly clear. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117955 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 9/27/2011 11:31:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I did point out that Ken's analysis left out the meaning of some of the "conventional" language, and tried to account for that in my own talk about kamma; but I do think he talked intelligently about the underlying elements in the sutta. I was glad that he looked at the order and elements that were talked about in some harmony with the order and elements of the sutta, even if the "conventional" language was not fully accounted for. ============================= Okay. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117956 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Thanks, Chuck! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/28/2011 12:46:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friend Howard, ditto on Dr. Hun's excellent wishes... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #117957 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 9/28/2011 2:21:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Howard, > Today's visit with the vascular surgeon was comforting. In 6 months > I'll have a follow-up cat scan, but the surgeon said we should not worry, and > he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all > will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) L: That's good. But staying with that topic, dont you think that the worst aspect of death is a severe pain? -------------------------------------------------- Whenever there is severe pain, it is ... painful! :-) The process leading to death is, of course, not always very painful. ------------------------------------------------ Adam told me in London, that there are things worst than death, he mentioned opiates as a girl that time. He states they are much more better than having a girl or being in love. He always says that's his love. But he told to himself at the end: It also cheats on you :P I liked this monolog. ---------------------------------------------- The pain of addiction is the craving and the suffering when the addictive substance (or circumstances) is missing. In order for the addiction to occur to begin with, of course great pleasantness must be involved. ----------------------------------------------- Best wishes Lukas ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117958 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/28/2011 2:52:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I thought of you and the Tuesday visit, and was just wondering. Good news and I am glad. ---------------------------------------- :-) Thank you!! -------------------------------------- Today Lodewijk is at the urological surgeon and I expect he will say the same: back in six months. ------------------------------------ That would be good. ------------------------------------ One always has to come back. As Christine suggests, it is good to remember that life is so short, ------------------------------------ Yes. It is. ----------------------------------- Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117959 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Thanks, Robert!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/28/2011 2:59:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I am very happy to hear this too! Somehow I missed the original post with this good news. #117960 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. nilovg Dear Sarah and Rob E, This answer is very clear, I put it in my files. I remember reading Rob's questions before. Nina. Op 28-sep-2011, om 12:34 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: If we are referring to sankhara nimitta (as we have been), i.e > nimitta of paramattha dhammas, sankhara dhammas, then we cannot say > they are concepts. They are 'reflections' or 'images' of realities > and those realities arise and fall away all the time. > > If we are referring to nimittas as concepts, for example, as > objects of jhana or in 'nimitta anubyanjana' (signs and details) as > thought about, then they are concepts and cannot be said to arise > and fall away. > . > S: Take 'sound'. it is experienced by the cittas through the ear- > door and then by at least one mind-door process as nimitta of > sound. Understanding can arise (in theory) in any process, but if > there's understanding of the characteristic of a dhamma now, such > as sound, there's no concern about which moment, which citta, which > door-way etc. > ... > > > > I ask this since it seems that the nimitta lasts longer and thus > gives the cittas a chance to get more information about the dhammas > through understanding the nimittas. > ... > S: I understand your point and while I think it's true to say that > a dhamma must be repeatedly experienced in order for awareness to > be aware of it, I don't think it's helpful to think about "nimitta > lasts longer" as this is bound to be an idea, a story about > nimitta, rather than the characteristic of a reality. (Ask Jon this > one when you write to him sometime as he'd give a better answer) ---------- #117961 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Scott, Op 28-sep-2011, om 14:38 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > N: "It is thinking of another being, a living being is the object of > metta. What is essential: thinking with kusala citta, with metta... > Metta is metta, no matter what religion one may adhere to." > > Scott: I was wanting to clarify. Citta with metta takes a living > being as object. Is this statement meant to be synonymous with the > phrase 'thinking with kusala citta?' If so, can you elaborate the > similarity; if not can you elaborate the difference? ------ N: Sometimes just metta without thinking, citta arises without having to think. When we just stretch out our hands to help. Sometimes cittas may think longer about this person who needs our help. ------ Nina. #117962 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Thanks, Vince! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/28/2011 7:10:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cerovzt@... writes: Howard wrote: > the surgeon said we should not worry, and > he put no restrictions on my exercising. So, it seems likely that you all > will have this damned meditator hanging around a while longer! ;-) congratulations for the good news :) best Vince #117963 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 21-sep-2011, om 20:35 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > N: Cetanaa accompanies each citta, it is one of the universals. It > can be kusala, akusala or neither. It can be classified according > to the objects experienced through the six doors, that is one way > of classification > > D: I take that as agreed .. ;-) > > D: so : "It is kusala when it accompanies kusala citta with sati > and pa~n~naam but it also accompanies kusala citta without > pa~n~naa .. ? ;-) > ------ N: Yes. For example in the case of dana without pa~n~na, there is still kusala citta with kusala cetanaa, as it accompanies each citta. Four types of kusala citta are accompanied by pa~n~naa, and four types are dissociated from pa~n~naa. --------- > > > D: in respect to (4) the effort to maintain : the favorable > object > here to be mindful of rising and ceasing mental and bodily > > phenomena .. here the will/thinking is adressed to maintain > > ------- > N: There are many aspects to the four right efforts. > > D: yes ..and the effort to maintain includes the need 'I shall try > to guard the senses' so that akusala citta does not arise' , as for > those still in the training the understanding of arising nama und > rupa is not lasting very long. Hence paying attention/concentrate > in order to go on with the object > ------- N: I see it more like this: continue to develop sati and pa~n~naa, continue on the right Path so that the goal can be reached. It is above all the function of pa~n~naa. Concentration follows in its train, but it must be right concentration accompanying right understanding. > > > N:A favourable object: it can also be an object of samatha, as I > read in A IV, 14. > > D: as to effort to maintain it says: 'Bhikkhus, what is the > endeavour to protect?Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu protects the > arisen good sign of concentration, the sign of bones, the sign of, > the worm infested corpse, the corpse turned blue, the festering > corpse, the corpse with little holes all over, the bloated corpse.' > i.e. the contemplation of the corpse as one of the 4 from > Satipatthana . > Is is this what you mean by 'object of samatha' , > ------ N: It is kusala citta with pa~n~naa of the level of samatha which attends to these objects. It is included in the satipa.t.thaanasutta. We can for example be reminded of the impermanence of realities and be aware then and there of any object that appears. For those who attain jhaana with these subjects: jhaana can be a base for vipassanaa. ------- > > > D: the mindfulness needs to guarded ( the 4 efforts) as it doesn't > last > ------- N: Sati does not last and nobody can keep it. It only arises because of the right conditions: listening, considering. ------ > > > D: yes, (our) training leads to accumulation of understanding , in > a way that right effort serves as nutrition for right mindfulness ... > ------ N: The right effort goes along with right mindfulness and right understanding, I would not call it a nutrition. Considering Dhamma is a nutrition, we cannot do without. -------- > > > D: I miss the emphases on 'the monk rises his will ' ( this very > > crucial of mental formations , the nurtue of viriya in the sense > > skilful effort. > Reading comments from some of our friends this > seems to be > impossible.. > -------- N: No problem with this text, we understand that cetanaa and chandha are conditioned realities. The Buddha also explains Dhamma in conventional terms as if a person could rouse his will, but in the context of the Tipi.taka this is clear. ----- > > > D: I have to repeat what has been stated many times already : we > have to work/train with where we stand in order to reach where we > are supposed to be, i.e. > that sati /panna are guarding the senses. The message I get from > K.S. is that intellectual understanding will do the job , but I > don't think that is possible . > ------- N: We all agree that intellectual understanding is not enough. But when it is right it can be a condition for direct understanding. I still have another mail of you to answer, but I have a break coming week and not sure about my time. ------- Nina. #117964 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:34 am Subject: Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon szmicio Hi Howard, > The pain of addiction is the craving and the suffering when the > addictive substance (or circumstances) is missing. In order for the addiction to > occur to begin with, of course great pleasantness must be involved. > ----------------------------------------------- L: Yes but I dont know why this is so hard to give it up. This is stronger than a man. Best wishes Lukas #117965 From: "connie" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:47 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nichiconn dear literate, > "If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi." > .... > S: Reading this on its own, would you follow the Buddha's example and kill the student who doesn't get the Dhamma training? > c: then there's The Final Cuti of the ones who really do submit; for that matter, even at stream entry it could be said that Someone has died. to wakes, connie #117966 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "Sometimes just metta without thinking, citta arises without having to think. When we just stretch out our hands to help. Sometimes cittas may think longer about this person who needs our help." Scott: Okay. 'Cittas may think' would be in reference to the functions of vitakka and vicaara arising with each citta. And the phrase 'cittas may think longer about this person...' would be referring to concept as object. What does 'think longer' refer to? The statement can confuse given the admixture of paramattha-level and conventional-level language. I would assume a series of cittas arising and falling away with that particular concept as object. Is this javana? Or many successive javana sequences? Also, 'person who needs our help' may not be the only aspect of object taken by metta, or the way I'd put it. It might be that metta itself, by arising, has an influence on the valence of the object: maybe needing help (but this sounds somehow conceited), but certainly being somehow 'worthy' of kindness. In contrast, dosa would have a different sort of person as object. Sincerely, Scott. #117967 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 9/28/2011 11:34:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Howard, > The pain of addiction is the craving and the suffering when the > addictive substance (or circumstances) is missing. In order for the addiction to > occur to begin with, of course great pleasantness must be involved. > ----------------------------------------------- L: Yes but I dont know why this is so hard to give it up. This is stronger than a man. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, very hard, due, in the case of drugs, to, initially physical pleasure, and subsequently physical need, and usually stonger than a person can overcome *without help* - and, so, help should be sought. --------------------------------------------- Best wishes Lukas ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117968 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few issues nilovg Dear Scott, Op 28-sep-2011, om 19:16 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > > N: "Sometimes just metta without thinking, citta arises without > having to think. When we just stretch out our hands to help. > Sometimes cittas may think longer about this person who needs our > help." > > Scott: Okay. 'Cittas may think' would be in reference to the > functions of vitakka and vicaara arising with each citta. And the > phrase 'cittas may think longer about this person...' would be > referring to concept as object. > ------ N: Not only vitakka and vicaara but also with the assistance of many other cetasikas. I cannot pinpoint vitakka and vicaara. ----- > > S: What does 'think longer' refer to? The statement can confuse > given the admixture of paramattha-level and conventional-level > language. I would assume a series of cittas arising and falling > away with that particular concept as object. Is this javana? Or > many successive javana sequences? > ------ N: Many, javana is so short. We 'think' either with kusala cittas or with akusala cittas. We can use the term 'thinking' not just referring to vitakka. An activity through the mind-door. -------- > > S: Also, 'person who needs our help' may not be the only aspect of > object taken by metta, or the way I'd put it. It might be that > metta itself, by arising, has an influence on the valence of the > object: maybe needing help (but this sounds somehow conceited), but > certainly being somehow 'worthy' of kindness. In contrast, dosa > would have a different sort of person as object. > ----- N: Worthy of kindness? But we may not know that person at all. The other day, Lodewijk and I were walking on the street and we saw a woman who tripped over. We quickly went up to her to see whether she needed help in getting up etc. We did not think of her as worthy of metta. I had dosa in between, because I feel shocked when seeing someone in distress or pain. The dosa was more about the circumstance. ------- P. S. I may not be able o answer all mails of everyone, since we will have a break. I am very glad if others butt in, that is the advantage of a forum. Nina. > #117969 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 9-sep-2011, om 2:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Even for Ariyans I imagine that there is not always direct awarness > of sense door objects before mind door processes, right? They > wouldn't be able to function in the world. ------ N: We cannot tell, but sure they thought of concepts, they did function in the world, and eminently so. ------- > > Ph: Even the one who became arahat when he saw "teeth" or "bones" > walking by, I forget which, had mind door processes to see teeth or > bones rather than colour. "In the seen there will be only the > seen", but in that case there must have been more than that.... ----- N: It was Tissa, see Visuddhimagga. He had the inclination to contemplate on parts of the body. He had to develop insight as well, otherwise he could not have become an arahat. That means awareness of all objects appearing through the six doors. ------- Ph: But if the present moment is one citta that means there can never be awareness of the present moment, not for us. Well, our friend nimitta comes in here again, I guess... ------ N: Sati can be aware of the present object. We do not have to think of one citta, who could catch that? ------- Nina. #117970 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 13-sep-2011, om 0:23 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > >Kh S: Even at > > the first 2 stages of insight, the panna is not strong enough to > > directly > > penetrate the paramattha dhammas as opposed to the nimittas of > > paramattha > > dhammas, because the direct knowledge of the rise and fall of > dhammas > > hasn't been fully realized. > > .... > > I wonder how it is that "the realization of direct knowledge of the > rise and fall of dhammas" takes place. I can understand developing > the understanding of what takes place, but when we talk about the > incredible speed of the rising and falling away of dhammas with > their characteristics, how is it that citta gets to a point in > which it is capable of apprending these dhammas "live" instead of > relying on the information from the left-over nimitta? Does > enlightened citta develop the supernatural ability to apprehend > dhammas at a much greater speed than before, or is it the level of > comprehension of characteristics that somehow allows the rise and > fall to be directly perceived "as they take place" in a way that > deluded citta cannot? > ------ N: We do not have to think of speed of citta with pa~n~naa, but we should not underestimate what pa~n~naa can do. When time comes. What I get from reading, there is a clearer understanding of characteristics of dhammas and also, more detachment. When there is holding on, no way to realize arising and falling away of dhammas. Also, the stages of insight develop step by step. We cannot fathom higher stages if the first stage has not been reached yet. > > ------- > R: - The Abhidhammatha Sangaha which uses the metaphor of dhammas > being seen in a kind of murky darkness where the distorted shapes > and forms of dhammas are seen rather than the well-illuminated > "things themselves, which suggests that the nimittas are not just a > product of a kind of after-image, but also a kind of distortion > caused by the delusory way in which unenlightened citta through > stage 2 insight would see and understand the arising dhammas; > ------ N: When we think of distortion this refers rather to the perversions, which are eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment. ------- > > R: - The sutta in which Buddha says that "mind is luminous," but > becomes covered over with "incoming defilements," and that when the > defilements are cleared away, the luminous nature of the mind is > revealed. If one were to look at this sutta in the light of nimitta > and the three stages of insight, you could see the deluded citta > through stage 2 as in the process of clearing off these layers of > defilements which distort its vision and finally coming to a > "luminous" or "radiant" view of dhammas when the major layers of > defilements have been removed from the cittas and leaves them to > see clearly. > ------ N: Luminous: refers to bhavangacitta. What you describe above is rather the stage of the arahat. ------- Nina. #117971 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, Scott, all, >P:Your post is too long for me to read carefully and respond to >(virya >is not predominant at this moment!) >========= Phil, please read it all when you get a chance. It is only ~1.5 pages in word. The major question there which I ask: DO you believe that Buddha clearly expressed Himself and meant what He said? >P:But can I repeat one specific question? You say the Buddha tells >people to strive. How can striving occur except by virya and other >dhammas? >============================================================ When there is striving, various dhammas such as viriya occur. When car is moving, its wheels are spinning, its engine is working, car's electrical, chemical and mechanical systems are working, etc. These things are required for driving to occur. Buddha has told us that when one does Anapanasati (MN118), then 4 satipatthanas get developed, 7 factors of awakening are fulfilled and Arahatship can be attained. Also in Ptsm it is said that when one does Anapanasati, insight of rise & fall is fulfilled, and there is development of Higher Virtue, Higher Mind, and.... Higher Understanding. (Ptsm III,246) So Anapanasati DOES develop wisdom! With best wishes, Alex #117972 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:20 am Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Op 25-sep-2011, om 0:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > Ph: We do know that understanding the teaching on seeing and > visible object bty reading about it, listening about it, discussing > it and reflecting on it is helpful condition for conditioning > satipatthana, but this iis not satipatthana. > > N: When visible object appears there is also seeing, but sati > > can be aware of only one dhamma at a time. > > Ph: I heard you say in a talk you used to understand both nama and > rupa at same time. It is natural to think knowing nama from rupa > must happen in this way. But no, that can only be thinking again. > ----------- N: Only thinking, but one may mistakenly take his for awareness. ---- > > Ph: So only one dhamma at a time. nama or rupa. > ------ N: And nobody can direct the object of sati. ------ > > Ph: I heard this: "At a moment of experiencing hardness, there are > two realities: hardness and knowing hardness" Natural to want to be > aware of both, but no, that is not knowing nama from rupa, right? > We know nama better, we know rupa better, and knowing nama from > rupa will come from that in a way that is not as obvious as > thinking thinks. Does that sound right? > ------ N: It is a matter of becoming familiar with the characteristics appearing now. It does not help to wish: how can I distinguish naama from ruupa, but we do! This works counter productive, lobha again. ------ > > Ph: Stupid question, but is the mind door nama or rupa? > ------ N: There are a series of bhavanga-cittas before the mind-door process begins. It is the last bhavangacitta before the mind-door adverting consciousness arises. It must be naama, and it is the means through which the cittas of the mind-door process experience an object. ------- Nina. > > #117973 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:30 am Subject: Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon szmicio Hi Howard, > HCW: > Yes, very hard, due, in the case of drugs, to, initially physical > pleasure, and subsequently physical need, and usually stonger than a person can > overcome *without help* - and, so, help should be sought. > --------------------------------------------- L: A who can help? I dont know any one who can help. Best wishes Lukas #117974 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 9/28/2011 3:30:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Howard, > HCW: > Yes, very hard, due, in the case of drugs, to, initially physical > pleasure, and subsequently physical need, and usually stonger than a person can > overcome *without help* - and, so, help should be sought. > --------------------------------------------- L: A who can help? I dont know any one who can help. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, there are professionals working in the field of addiction, and counselors of various sorts. Most especially, there are psychiatrists specializing in this who could "attack" the problem in a variety of ways, including the use of medications of various sorts. But I cannot provide specifics. I would start with my regular physician and follow his/her lead. ------------------------------------------------ Best wishes Lukas ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117975 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:42 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: Do you take the following comment of the Buddha's literally? >... Reading this on its own, would you follow the Buddha's example >and kill the student who doesn't get the Dhamma training? >================= You make good point. However, The Buddha *in this sutta* has explain what He has meant. In suttas when He talks using similes or Parables, He does state it as such and used pali words such as Seyyathapi, "just as". In the Kesi sutta there is clear explanation of His metaphor explained by the Buddha (whom I believe to be the Best Teacher) Himself. The difference between our cases is that -You allow for interpretations made by other monks even regarding more strait forward suttas. -These monks may not have lived during Buddha's time or may not have gotten approval from the Buddha, so the Buddha was not there to reject incorrect interpretations of his words. There were bad monks during time of the Buddha such as: Devadatta, Arittha, Sati, Subhadda (from DN16). How do we know that some commentators, even well intentioned ones, not making honest mistakes? Without Buddha being alive, He cannot correct them. So He is defenseless in that sense. Ancient commentators are not omniscient for the sake of being ancient. Devadatta, Arittha, Sati and Subhadda would be called Ancient commentators. But this didn't make them right. Achievement even of Arahatship is no guarantee that one can answer many hard Dhamma questions. Remember the case of Ven. Assaji? He was an Arahant and was asked by Ven. Sariputta to teach him Dhamma could only teach very little. So even if an Arahant living in Buddha's time could know very little theory, nothing to say about less capable people. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #117976 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:49 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt szmicio Dear Nina and Phil, > ------ > N: And nobody can direct the object of sati. > ------ L: Because sati must be natural. Sati goes it's own way. But the point here may be what are the conditions for sati to arise? > > > > Ph: I heard this: "At a moment of experiencing hardness, there are > > two realities: hardness and knowing hardness" Natural to want to be > > aware of both, but no, that is not knowing nama from rupa, right? > > We know nama better, we know rupa better, and knowing nama from > > rupa will come from that in a way that is not as obvious as > > thinking thinks. Does that sound right? > > > ------ L: I think sati is the quality of ~nana. Best wishes Lukas #117977 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon szmicio Hi Howard, > HCW: > Well, there are professionals working in the field of addiction, and > counselors of various sorts. Most especially, there are psychiatrists > specializing in this who could "attack" the problem in a variety of ways, > including the use of medications of various sorts. But I cannot provide specifics. > I would start with my regular physician and follow his/her lead. > ------------------------------------------------ L: And If I want to change my life? What should I do? Where should I start? Best wishes Lukas #117978 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: Just looking at the Pali: >=============== It contains kara.niiya.m which translates: "ought to be done, (nt.), duty; obligation.". The sutta also talks about "...chando, vayamo, ussaho, ussolhi, appaiivani..." vayama = exertion; striving. ussaha = endeavour; effort. ussolhi = exertion. appaiivani= a zealous person. So translation of "exertion" is correct. And when taken in the context of the sutta it is clear that intention was to properly strive hard. Unfortunately Awakening is not going to simply drop on one's lap one day. Hard work is unfortunately required.... With best wishes, Alex #117979 From: Vince Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon cerovzt@... Lukas wrote: > L: A who can help? I dont know any one who can help. Do you know this place?. It's a famous Buddhist detox monastery: http://www.thamkrabok-monastery.org/ best, Vince. #117980 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 9/28/2011 3:57:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Howard, > HCW: > Well, there are professionals working in the field of addiction, and > counselors of various sorts. Most especially, there are psychiatrists > specializing in this who could "attack" the problem in a variety of ways, > including the use of medications of various sorts. But I cannot provide specifics. > I would start with my regular physician and follow his/her lead. > ------------------------------------------------ L: And If I want to change my life? What should I do? Where should I start? ------------------------------------------------- Get the addiction under control first (as indicated above), and then go on to other matters. That is my point of view. ---------------------------------------------- Best wishes Lukas ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117981 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex > >P:But can I repeat one specific question? You say the Buddha tells >people to strive. How can striving occur except by virya and other >dhammas? > >============================================================ > > When there is striving, various dhammas such as viriya occur. Ph: Nothing but virya and other dhammas. Agreed? > When car is moving, its wheels are spinning, its engine is working, car's electrical, chemical and mechanical systems are working, etc. > These things are required for driving to occur. Ph: If you complete this analogy, you will say you need self to strive as car needs driver to drive. If this is how you think Dhamma should be approached, it shows you don't understand Dhamma and talk about whether the Buddha meant what he said is moot because you don't understand Dhamma. Are you saying you believe self or strategy or self should "drive" meditation. Yes or no? Keep it short, thanks. > Buddha has told us that when one does Anapanasati (MN118), then > 4 satipatthanas get developed, 7 factors of awakening are fulfilled and Arahatship can be attained. > > Also in Ptsm it is said that when one does Anapanasati, insight of rise & fall is fulfilled, and there is development of Higher Virtue, Higher Mind, and.... Higher Understanding. (Ptsm III,246) > So Anapanasati DOES develop wisdom! Ph:The Buddha wasn't a witch doctor, sorry. No magic rituals. Cause and effect. Doing something with ignorance and longing for results doesn't magically condition liberation. So why don't you stop posting and go meditate instead of haranguing others about it? Because of your health condition. But even though you can't meditate yoy spend hours of your precious human life haranguing about meditation and oblige other people to spend hours of theirs to read your posts and respond to you. It seems strange to me. Let it go and go to Dhammawheel, where people belueve that just sitting and watching the breath works wonders. Well you are already there. You spend too much time on the internet, alex. I would like to read you "yes" or "no" to tgequestion above. Do you believe self or some kind of self-based strategy should "drive" meditation? Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #117982 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >Ph: If you complete this analogy, you will say you need self to >strive as car needs driver to drive. >========== To complete that analogue: Just like description of car's functioning doesn't reject that car functions, same thing with striving. Striving does occur. Striving can be analyzed into cittas & cetasikas, but analysis into citta and cetasikas doesn't reject that striving occurs. Description of an action does not exclude action from happening, it merely describes it. There also can be description of a prescription. It doesn't have to be either/or. I hope this is clear. With best wishes, Alex #117983 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon philofillet Hi Lukas > L: And If I want to change my life? What should I do? Where should I start? > ------------------------------------------------- > Get the addiction under control first (as indicated above), and then > go on to other matters. Ph: This is the only possible right advice, Lukas. You're an intellgent person so I think you know this already. You were able to find out about a place to go on a retreat in Scotland, I'm sure you can find good addiction counsellors in your own country. Sorry, nothing more to say on the topic of nicotine, alcohol or opiate addiction. Get professional help. Metta, Phil > > > Best wishes > Lukas > > ============================= > > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > > #117984 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex Thanks for the brevity! :) > >Ph: If you complete this analogy, you will say you need self to >strive as car needs driver to drive. > >========== > > To complete that analogue: Just like description of car's functioning doesn't reject that car functions, same thing with striving. Striving does occur. Striving can be analyzed into cittas & cetasikas, but analysis into citta and cetasikas doesn't reject that striving occurs. Ph: Any idea of striving that is anything other than citta and cetasikas is compketely nonsensical to me, sorry. I guess you don't really believe in or understand what people have written hundreds or thousands of times about dhammas or you would see tgat too. > Description of an action (snipped) > I hope this is clear. Ph: I'm interested in dhammas, not in reading people writing about the value of describing actions. Show me da dhammas. If you write about paramattha dhammas, I can read and respond, otherwise life is too short. There may be some value in what you think and write, but look at the description of this group's aims and reflect on whether this is the suitable place to push your views, even if only in terms of good manners. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil > #117985 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again Alex If possible, could you give a yes/no/neither of the above answer to the following two questions?If not possible to answer yes/no, fine, but please say so. If you want to insist on an answer to your question first (which has been answereed countless times) fine, happy to drop it. But it would be helpful if you answered. 1) > Ph: Nothing but virya and other dhammas. Agreed? 2)> Are you saying you believe self or strategy of self or Thanissaro Bhikkhus "self-ing" or "using self to get rid of self" or something like that should "drive" meditation? Yes or no? Thanks Alex Metta, Phil #117986 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, >Ph: I guess you don't really believe in or understand what people >have written hundreds or thousands of times about dhammas or you >would see tgat too. >================= If they would *prove* their point then I would take it. I have seen tactics such as: 1) Mixing prescription with description. These two do not exclude each other. 2) Saying things that directly contradict the suttas and Commentaries. 3)When pressed and unable to answer, getting personal and changing the topic. 4) Making various logical mistakes some of which are too serious to to attribute merely to careless mistake. With best wishes, Alex #117987 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:02 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina > ------ > N: It is a matter of becoming familiar with the characteristics > appearing now. It does not help to wish: how can I distinguish naama > from ruupa, but we do! This works counter productive, lobha again. Ph: "Just understand". We can understand tge minents of wanting ti know nama from rupa too. We can understand nama. We can understand rupa. "Can" as in possibility, not current ability. But sometimes we do. Understamd cones and goes, and accumulates, panna works its way. > > Ph: Stupid question, but is the mind door nama or rupa? > > > ------ > N: There are a series of bhavanga-cittas before the mind-door process > begins. It is the last bhavangacitta before the mind-door adverting > consciousness arises. It must be naama, and it is the means through > which the cittas of the mind-door process experience an object. Ph: Thank you. I think I was getting confused with the heart base, that is a very small rupa, somewhere in the area of the heart, and its function is to serve as tge base for...all nama dhammas? Usually in the West we would think tgat base is in the head. When Hapanese people (and I'm sure all Asians) gesture to the mind, they gesture to the area of the heart, interesting. Metta, Phil #117988 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >P:If possible, could you give a yes/no/neither of the above answer >to >the following two questions?If not possible to answer yes/no, >fine, >but please say so. >............ >Ph: Nothing but virya and other dhammas. Agreed? >========================== Summary: If your argument against existence of a striving person is based on famous "Simile of the Chariot", then I disagree. It is fallacious argumen as it missess the point called strong emergence where a whole is NOT reducible to sum of its parts. Also there is logical fallacy of composition that is used by some and delivered with red herring and ad hominems. ==========Please read ================ Some use the famous "chariot simile" to demonstrate that wholes do not exist. The argument goes as follows. When we take a chariot and ask "is the wheel a chariot" the answer is "no." Then we ask if the axle, or some other part is the chariot, and the answer will always be no. Part is not the whole. Thus in such reductionist analysis one fails to find the whole (chariot) in each of its parts. We can substitute any complex thing for the chariot. Lets use a more modern example, an engine. Lets say that this engine produces 1,000 horsepower. We can say, just like with chariot simile, that engine as a whole doesn't exist because none of its parts is an engine. But, while the engine can produce 1000 hp, none of its parts can. If we reduce that engine into 1000 parts it doesn't mean that each of those parts has one horse power, so that when we would add them up we would have 1000 hp. It is called "fallacy of division" to propose that if one whole can do something, then its parts can do the same, even if to a lesser degree. If we reduce the chariot into 1000 parts it doesn't mean that each part fulfills 1000th of chariot's function. Chariot has a totally new function that is not present within its parts. Same with engine and many other complex wholes. Water molecule is another example. Water molecule is H20, two atoms of hydrogen per one atom of oxygen. Hydrogen and Oxygen have gaseous properties. Together they do not produce more gas, they produce water that has totally new properties not reducible to qualities of Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is fallacy of composition to insist that since water molecule has hydrogen & oxygen have gaseous properties, then water which is made of them has gaseous properties. There is no single atom that has a property of "wetness" or liquidity. At least three non liquid atoms are required for one molecule that has minimal quality of wetness. This is called strong emergence, when totally new quality emerges that was not inherent in its parts. So such a whole is not a mere "sum of its parts". There is a qualitative jump where the whole supervenes on its parts. So whole (be it engine or chariot) has new functions different from its component parts. Moreover one cannot learn about the emergent qualities of the whole from its parts as the qualities can be very different. Same is when for the chariot, engine, or water, we use "A person" and for the parts we talk about citta, cetasika and rupa. The properties that belong to individial citta, cetasika, or rupa does not have to belong to the whole. Empirical person can be an emergent phenomena that has different qualities than its parts, and thus qualities that paramattha dhammas have do not have to apply to the Person, a whole. By properties in this context I mean the ability to make a choice, strive, and so on. The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta. With best wishes, Alex #117989 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Lukas > L: Because sati must be natural. Sati goes it's own way. But the point here may be what are the conditions for sati to arise? Ph: Rob K answered in 4 words when I asked about where does the right understanding that is condition for satipatthana come from?: listening, reading, discussing, reflecting. Maybe I would add "studying" for studying the characteristics of dhammas right now. It's so interesting!!! I used to object to this idea (before that I loved it, maybe I will object again someday, no control over how panna develips) but as Rob K once wrote "every monent is perfectly instructive" or words very close to that. Metta, Phil #117990 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "==========Please read ================..." Scott: Reference please. Sincerely, Scott. #117991 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:34 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Sarah (pt and all) > S: No, not at all. If it's just wrong view, but with no action, such as harming another, not akusala kamma patha. The wrong view has to condition deeds and speech. Ph: Wow, I think I had a major misunderstanding here. How about thoughts of harming? Are they only akusala kamma patha when they condition deeds or speech? Metta, Phil #117992 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Good Visit with the Surgeon rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > Lukas wrote: > > > > L: A who can help? I dont know any one who can help. > > Do you know this place?. It's a famous Buddhist detox monastery: > > http://www.thamkrabok-monastery.org/ > >+++++++++++ Dear Vince and Lukas I've visited that tempel a couple of times, I like the scenery robert #117993 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi pt > > Ph: Interesting, when does the lobha arise, with the speaking of sarcastic words. or afterwards when getting pleasure out of what one wrote? Who knows, case by case. > > pt: Yes, I think as Scott mentioned in another post, lot of different cittas involved, and yes, case by case as you say. Ph: Thanks for your further thoughts on harsh speech. It's a topic I might like to discuss at another time, but kind of sick of it for the time being at least.. Metta, Phil #117994 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, > Scott: Reference please. Reference for what? With best wishes, Alex #117995 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Reference for what?" Scott: The essay you appended to your last post to Phil. Sincerely, Scott. #117996 From: A T Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Phil, Scott, all, More on this important issue. This is continuation of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117988 In order for eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññÄṇa) to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity (cakkhuppasÄda), visible object (rÅ"pÄrammaṇa), light (Äloka) and attention (manasikÄra). CMA pg 151 Is Eye-sensitivity equal to eye consciousness ? No. Is visible object equal to eye consciousness? No. Is light equal to eye consciousness? No. Is attention equal to eye consciousness? No. So does this mean that eye-consciousness doesn’t exist since it cannot be found in any parts of this seeing process? Is function of eye-consciousness being mental (nÄma) reducible to sum of matter (rÅ"pa)? Is mentality (nÄma) just a lot of matter (rÅ"pa)? Eye consciousness is an emergent phenomena that has different qualities that are not found in its components. Same with effort. If *individual* cittas, cetasikas, and rÅ"pa cannot strive and do intentional actions, it doesn’t mean that emergent phenomenon we call a “Person†needs to lack the ability to strive as Buddha has asked us to do. With best wishes, Alex #117997 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, Did you write the following small essay yourself? Some use the famous "chariot simile" to demonstrate that wholes do not exist. The argument goes as follows. When we take a chariot and ask "is the wheel a chariot" the answer is "no." Then we ask if the axle, or some other part is the chariot, and the answer will always be no. Part is not the whole. Thus in such reductionist analysis one fails to find the whole (chariot) in each of its parts. We can substitute any complex thing for the chariot. Lets use a more modern example, an engine. Lets say that this engine produces 1,000 horsepower. We can say, just like with chariot simile, that engine as a whole doesn't exist because none of its parts is an engine. But, while the engine can produce 1000 hp, none of its parts can. If we reduce that engine into 1000 parts it doesn't mean that each of those parts has one horse power, so that when we would add them up we would have 1000 hp. It is called "fallacy of division" to propose that if one whole can do something, then its parts can do the same, even if to a lesser degree. If we reduce the chariot into 1000 parts it doesn't mean that each part fulfills 1000th of chariot's function. Chariot has a totally new function that is not present within its parts. Same with engine and many other complex wholes. Water molecule is another example. Water molecule is H20, two atoms of hydrogen per one atom of oxygen. Hydrogen and Oxygen have gaseous properties. Together they do not produce more gas, they produce water that has totally new properties not reducible to qualities of Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is fallacy of composition to insist that since water molecule has hydrogen & oxygen have gaseous properties, then water which is made of them has gaseous properties. There is no single atom that has a property of "wetness" or liquidity. At least three non liquid atoms are required for one molecule that has minimal quality of wetness. This is called strong emergence, when totally new quality emerges that was not inherent in its parts. So such a whole is not a mere "sum of its parts". There is a qualitative jump where the whole supervenes on its parts. So whole (be it engine or chariot) has new functions different from its component parts. Moreover one cannot learn about the emergent qualities of the whole from its parts as the qualities can be very different. Same is when for the chariot, engine, or water, we use "A person" and for the parts we talk about citta, cetasika and rupa. The properties that belong to individial citta, cetasika, or rupa does not have to belong to the whole. Empirical person can be an emergent phenomena that has different qualities than its parts, and thus qualities that paramattha dhammas have do not have to apply to the Person, a whole. By properties in this context I mean the ability to make a choice, strive, and so on. The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta. Sincerely, Scott. #117998 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex > > 2)> Are you saying you believe self or strategy of self or Thanissaro Bhikkhus "self-ing" or "using self to get rid of self" or something like that should "drive" meditation? > > Yes or no? Ph: You have ignored this question twice, perhaps didn't reach it. Do you believe in you self strategically to create conditions for liberation? Yes or no. No third option necessary here. Please stop ranting, it's bad for you (is it a symptom of your sickness or one of the causes?) and tiring for others. Metta, Phil #117999 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hu again > > Do you believe in you self strategically to create conditions for liberation? > > Correction: Do you believe in using self... metta, phil #118001 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Offline Offline Hi Phil, Scott, all,