#118000 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, Yes, I wrote it. And also the one at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117996 With best wishes, Alex #118001 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Phil, Scott, all, >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. Just like eye-consciousness as emergent phenomena exists, so does the empiric self as emergent phenomena based on dhammas exist. Emergent phenomena doesn't need to have all the qualities of its constituent parts. Just like eye consciousness which is mental does not have properties of rupa (nama is separate from rupa), same is with emergent phenomenon of empiric self. Just like emergent phenomenon of eye-consciousness is not reducible to matter, neither is person reducible to aggregates. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117996 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117988 With best wishes, Alex #118002 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex > >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. Thanks Alex. Metta, Phil #118003 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:25 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > 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." > .... I would like to take the opportunity to follow the example of one of my favorite explainer of realities, pt, and say "Straw man!" :-) I don't think that reading something "literally" means that one has to take things out of context, when the context is obvious. Or that one is not able to understand the way something is being presented in normal, everyday terms. I don't think it takes "interpretation," for instance, or that there is any great dispute or confusion when Buddha talks about "crossing the flood," to understand that he is not giving instructions on how to survive the local monsoon, but that the "flood" refers to samsara. Does the use of occasional metaphors, examples, parallels or rhetorical devices that are explained and followed through mean that every single sentence of plain-spoken Pali that the Buddha said is subject to far-flung interpretations? I think in some cases it is obvious and everyone agrees on the meaning, and in other cases the reading of the sutta really is more difficult and requires study or consultation to explore the meaning. But when the Buddha says on a number of occasions, without any metaphors, but sometimes with clear analogies, that we should "strive with all our might," with "unceasing devotion," or anything like that, such statements are not mysterious. They'd not abstract. They are the normal kinds of admonitions that a coach would give to an athlete. Is that really confusing? > S: Reading this on its own, would you follow the Buddha's example and kill the student who doesn't get the Dhamma training? Uh...no. And there's a difference between a context within the sutta itself, and one that is given by reading a completely different set of scriptures, and then overlaying its meaning on top of the sutta. > 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. I don't doubt that this is the case, and the more cross-referencing, the better the understanding. I don't have any problem with that. But when commentaries say very powerful things that the Buddha never said, or contradict what he actually did say, and in justifying doing so, give the Buddha the opposite meaning to what he said, that seems to be a very different situation. > 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. I think that is an intriguing explanation, and I would like to see how it is applied without taking away from the Buddha's specific statements on right effort. If he says "strive with all your might," "practice diligently with continuous effort like your hair is on fire," etc., how are those statements to be interpreted in the light of what you have said about viriya? Are you saying that he did not mean to encourage his followers to take action, to work towards understanding and enlightenment, when he made those very clear statements? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118004 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:27 am Subject: What is Advantageous? bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the 8 Advantageous Kinds of Consciousness? 1: Unprompted consciousness joined with joy and understanding. Example: Knowing merit one spontaneously gives with joy a gift. 2: Prompted consciousness joined with joy and understanding. Example: Knowing merit one, urged by others, gives with joy a gift. 3: Unprompted consciousness with joy, but not understanding. Example: Unaware of merit one spontaneously gives with joy a gift. 4: Prompted consciousness joined with joy, but not understanding. Example: Unaware of merit one, urged on, gives with joy a gift. 5: Unprompted consciousness with equanimity & understanding. Example: Knowing merit one spontaneously gives yet in indifference. 6: Prompted consciousness joined with equanimity & understanding. Example: Knowing merit one, urged by others, gives in indifference. 7: Unprompted consciousness with equanimity, but no understanding. Example: Unaware of merit one spontaneously gives in indifference. 8: Prompted consciousness with equanimity, but no understanding. Example: Unaware of merit, urged on, one gives in indifference. These are the 8 kinds of Advantageous Consciousness of the Sensuous Sphere (lower worlds). 1 is the best, 8 the lowest. The delayed effect of all these mental states is happiness, joy & pleasure! There are in total 89 kinds of Consciousness! All are mapped here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/table1.htm <....> Source: The Path of Purification XIV 81ff: The Visuddhimagga by Ariya Buddhaghosa from the 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 The Visuddhimagga is Online free here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/zips/vism.zip http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/PathofPurification2011.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #118005 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:46 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > 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? Kamma patha takes place on three levels - thought, speech and action. as far as I understand, the intense level of intention that results in realization through action creates the strongest kamma. Thoughts of murder do create kamma, but actually murdering someone creates much much heavier akusala kamma. - - - - - - - - - From wikipedia: Kammapatha, in Buddhism, refers to the ten wholesome and unwholesome courses of action (kamma). Among the ten in the two sets, three are bodily, four are verbal, and three are mental. The ten courses of unwholesome kamma may be listed as follows, divided by way of their doors of expression: 1. Destroying life 2. Taking what is not given 3. Wrong conduct in regard to sense pleasures 4. False speech 5. Slanderous speech 6. Harsh speech 7. Idle chatter 8. Covetousness 9. Ill will 10. Wrong view The ten courses of wholesome kamma are the opposites of these: abstaining from the first seven courses of unwholesome kamma, being free from covetousness and ill will, and holding right view. Though the seven cases of abstinence are exercised entirely by the mind and do not necessarily entail overt action, they are still designated wholesome bodily and verbal action because they center on the control of the faculties of body and speech. - - - - - - - - - - - Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #118006 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:39 pm Subject: Chariot simile means that there is a self?: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 Dear Alex http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html Then Mara the Evil One, wanting to arouse fear, horripilation, & terror in her, wanting to make her fall away from concentration, approached her & addressed her in verse: By whom was this living being created? Where is the living being's maker? Where has the living being originated? Where does the living being cease? Then the thought occurred to Vajira the nun: "Now who has recited this verse — a human being or a non-human one?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited this verse wanting to arouse fear, horripilation, & terror in me, wanting to make me fall away from concentration." Then, having understood that "This is Mara the Evil One," she replied to him in verses: What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara? Do you take a position? This is purely a pile of fabrications. Here no living being can be pinned down. Just as when, with an assemblage of parts, there's the word, chariot, even so when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living being. For only stress is what comes to be; stress, what remains & falls away. Nothing but stress comes to be. Nothing ceases but stress. Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Vajira the nun knows me" — vanished right there. robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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 > #118007 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:19 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 28-sep-2011, om 21:49 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > ------ > > 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? > ------- N: Listening, considering the Dhamma, asking questions, intellectual understanding. ------- > > Phil: > > 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. > ------ N: Sati of the level of satipa.t.thaana goes together with pa~n~naa that understands realities. Distinguishing naama from ruupa is the first stage of insight knowledge. Lukas, the Dhamma can change your life gradually. Not as fast as we would like. I appreciate so much Howard's kind concern, and he is right that also medical help is good. ------- Nina. #118008 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:26 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Op 29-sep-2011, om 2:02 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > 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? ----- N: No, the sense-cognitions (seeing etc.) have as their physical base eyesense, etc. , thus, ruupas. Apart from these, the other cittas have the heart-base as their physical base. -------- > Ph:Usually in the West we would think that base is in the head. > When Japanese people (and I'm sure all Asians) gesture to the mind, > they gesture to the area of the heart, interesting. ------ N: Yes, emphasis on the brain in the West, I had a discussion with Vince on this. ------ Nina. #118009 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:52 pm Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt szmicio Dear Nina, > Lukas, the Dhamma can change your life gradually. Not as fast as we > would like. I appreciate so much Howard's kind concern, and he is > right that also medical help is good. L: In this pace, I will end in a cementary, rather then develop understanding. Best wishes Lukas #118010 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...strong emergence where a whole is NOT reducible to sum of its parts...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...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...This is called strong emergence, when totally new quality emerges that was not inherent in its parts...'A person' and for the parts we talk about citta, cetasika and rupa. The properties that belong to individual 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...The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta." Scott: What is the reference source for these philosophical terms (fallacy of division, fallacy of composition, strong emergence, emergent phenomena)? You believe that 'person' has the three marks of a paramattha dhamma. Scott. #118011 From: Lukas Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:17 pm Subject: A fear szmicio Dear friends, What is fear, how to manage fear? I feel like i need to pose some questions to Acharn Sujin? Anyone in Bkk meetings? Best wishes Lukas #118012 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:43 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi KenH, > > pt: ...At all other times, there's something else > going on under the guise of "considering dhamma" so i'm trying to hear from > others what else could be happening there. > ------------ > > KH: Allow me to enlighten you. When it's not panna it's some other dhamma. > > It's always just dhammas rising and falling, and nothing to do with you as a sentient being. You, as a sentient being, are just an occasional figment of those dhammas' imagination. pt: :) Ok, though I was more hoping to hear about cheating dhammas, near and far enemies and that sort of thing. > > pt: This is where my primary concern is - i think in my case, there's lobha for kusala a lot of the time. > --------------------- > > KH: Do you mean wanting to be a better person? pt: Of course. > KH: The important thing is you know that is not genuine kusala. You know it is some kind of near opposite. pt: Ah, but what about those accumulations in sanna? Even though they're unwholesome? Have to ferret that one out with Nina and Sarah. > > PT: If there's no pariyatti at the moment, as in panna concerned with the present reality (concept of a dhamma that fell away), then what sort of kusala is happening there in the sense of bhavana - development of understanding? > ------------------ > > KH: None! pt: ok ... > > PT: 2. How does this sort of intellectualising actually lead to development of panna? > -------------------------- > > KH: It doesn't. Only the other sort (intellectualising that *is* accompanied by panna) will lead to more panna. pt: Wait a second, that other sort would be pariyatti, no? Which then means there's a whole step missing in between - i.e. there seems to be a pregress straight from akusala thinking to pariyatti, which would suggest that akusala thinking conditions kusala at some point? I was under the impression before that there's something called "right intellectual understanding" or "right thinking", which is not the same as pariyatti - i.e. no panna yet about (concepts of) present realities, but it is not akusala either! So what kind of animal is that? Because at the moment you seem to be saying there's no such thing in the first place? Best wishes pt #118013 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:15 pm Subject: Re: A fear sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, > What is fear, how to manage fear? .... S: As you know, it's a kind of dosa, a kind of aversion and very, very common. If there weren't the proliferations, the dwelling on all sorts of ideas without awareness, there'd be no fear. Only the anagami and arahat have no more dosa, no more uneasiness, no more fear. You have heard a lot of Dhamma and have a lot of good intellectual understanding of it, Lukas. You know that cittas, including those with fear, are so very brief. It might seem that we're afraid for a long time, but that's just a (wrong) idea. Fear, like all other dhammas is very momentary. Now, at this instant, is there fear? Is there attachment? Without attachment, there's no fear, but no one asks about how to manage or get rid of the attachment and pleasant feeling. So now, there's no fear, so forget about what's gone and develop understanding of the present dhamma appearing - seeing, thinking, visible object, attachment, pleasant feeling and so on. When we dwell on one dhamma that's gone, such as fear, it shows the strong attachment to 'Me' and my experience, doesn't it? > feel like i need to pose some questions to Acharn Sujin? Anyone in Bkk meetings? .... S: We won't be visiting Bkk until end Jan, but of course will be happy to ask some of your qus then. Meanwhile, keep asking them here, maybe elaborating on them a little more. You can also help answer others' questions and share some of your dhamma understanding. For example, perhaps you can help answer some of Alex's questions and comments to us - no time for fear when one is sharing or helping friends with Dhamma! Have you started the job in the school? How is it going? The difficulties in your life really will pass, Lukas. Meanwhile, keep sharing your Dhamma interest with us. Metta Sarah p.s. Btw, like Howard and others, I also think that it might be a good idea to get some professional help with some of your addictive problems and their effects. For some of the physical and mental problems you describe, the nicotine, caffeine, alcohol and other drugs will greatly aggravate the difficulties. Let us know how it goes. ======== #118014 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A fear nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 29-sep-2011, om 13:17 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > What is fear, how to manage fear? ------ N: Dosa cetasika. it has many forms. At that momen there is dislike of the object. We cannot manage it, it arises because of its own conditions. But it can be understood as only a type of naama. It cannot stay, it arises and falls away. The anaagaami has no more fear. Accept it that you cannot manage it, it can remind you of the truth of anattaa. Nina. #118015 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A fear sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, The following was posted by Ven Samahita before: "Free from Fear by Release from all Anxiety: The young deity Subrahma once asked the Buddha: Always frightened is this Mind! Always troubled is this Mind! Always agitated is this Mind! About present problems... About future problems... If there is a release from this worry & anxiety, please then explain it to me right now! Whereupon the Blessed Buddha simply declared: I see no other real safety for any living being, except from control of the senses, except from the relinquishment of all, except from awakening into Enlightenment! Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya I 54" ..... S: See many more helpfu posts saved under "Fear" in 'Useful Posts". It's getting late here and I need to close down, but why don't you go through them and share the posts/quotes that you find helpful there. We all have lots and lots of fears, so will be glad to read some of these reminders again. What does it say about fear in the Dhsg, vibhanga or other texts you have access too? Please share some of them with us! Metta Sarah ===== #118016 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear pt, Op 29-sep-2011, om 13:43 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > I was under the impression before that there's something called > "right intellectual understanding" or "right thinking", which is > not the same as pariyatti - i.e. no panna yet about (concepts of) > present realities, but it is not akusala either! ------ N: Yes, pariyatti is right thinking of the present reality, beginning to investigate it. ------ Nina. #118017 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...strong emergence where a whole is NOT reducible to sum of its parts...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...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...This is called strong emergence, when totally new quality emerges that was not inherent in its parts...'A person' and for the parts we talk about citta, cetasika and rupa. The properties that belong to individual 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...The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta." Scott: Does this seem familiar? "...In other words, a chariot is most certainly an assemblage of parts, but it is an assemblage of parts in a particular functional arrangement, and to alter this arrangement is to destroy the chariot. It is no great wonder that a chariot cannot be found if we have taken the precaution of destroying it before starting to look for it. If a man sees a chariot in working order and says 'In the highest sense there is no chariot; for it is a mere assemblage of parts', all he is saying is 'It is possible to take this chariot to pieces and to gather them in a heap; and when this is done there will no longer be a chariot'. The argument, then, does not show the non-existence of the chariot; at best it merely asserts that an existing chariot can be destroyed. And when it is applied to an individual (i.e. a set of pañcakkhandhá) it is even less valid; for not only does it not show the non-existence of the individual, but since the functional arrangement of the pañcakkhandhá cannot be altered, even in imagination, it asserts an impossibility, that an existing individual can be destroyed. As applied to an individual (or a creature) the argument runs into contradiction; and to say of an individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a mere asemblage of khandhá' is to be unintelligible..." Scott: It's from ~Na.naviira. Same argument. Dubious company if not source. http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm Scott. #118018 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 1 nilovg Dear Dieter, I only answer parts, I cannot make it long. For shortness I snipped some parts. Op 22-sep-2011, om 20:59 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > ( D:Yes , we should take the harsh words of Mr. X with > equanimity .But > not because it is conditioned dhamma and there is > no person X ( the > chain of conditioned dhammas describe the > delusioned Person , i.e. > D.O.) , but as an effort to avoid > ( aversion, anger) . > ------ N: Precisely when pa~n~naa understands that there are only conditioned realities, no person, there are more conditions to avoid akusala. There are levels of avoiding and this is most effective. -------- > > > D: I think it is useful to recall the Kamma Sutta S.N. XXXV , 145 > (transl. T.B.) > > 'Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, ... > > We cannot change what has appeared to us here -and -now , i.e. old > kamma or like you said 'conditioned by (my own) kamma' > but we influence the future appearance by our (re)action here and > now , i.e. new kamma. > ------ N: Understanding realities as they are, that means less clinging to "I", is a condition for more kusala citta and kusala kamma. We influence, but it is not us who influence, only sobhana cetasikas. Conditions. ------- > > D: ( the difference between sankhara ,2nd place and sankhara > khanda , 4th place in D.O. ..) > --------- D.O. Second place: sa.nkhaara, includes kusala kamma, akusala kamma, imperturbable kamma (aruupa jhaana), this is active. Fourth place is naama/ruupa, this is kamma result: naama is cetasikas accompanying vipaakacittas. Ruupa: the five sense organs, produced by kamma. ------ > > D: in other words it is the strength, energy of the will > ( sankhara /kamma formation / volition / will): > Chanda as you mentioned will be splendid nutrition. > ------ N: Chanda if it is kusala, assists, but as nutrition? I agree that kamma is cetanaa. ------- Nina. #118019 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/28/2011 9:37:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: 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. -------------------------------------------------- Phil, I think you may be coming on a bit strong here and in a few other recent posts. Having a point of view, especially a newly acquired and fascinating one, can sometimes lead to a tightening up of our mind and to less than "generous" interactions with folks of different views. One thing that I find useful for myself is to keep in mind that whatever my belief-of-the-moment may be, it is only belief, is subject to change, and should be held lightly. As the (now deceased) Korean Son master, Seung Sahn, used to teach, it is good to keep in mind "Only don't know". If you think I may have a valid point here, you could consider it, but if not, then just leave it. I'm only making some observations, and I certainly don't mean to preach. If in fact *I* am coming on too strong here, I do apologize! --------------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118020 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition ( waRe: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Phil, Op 26-sep-2011, om 21:31 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > 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? ------- N: It is not enough to say decisive support, since this includes decisive support-condition of object (someone likes nicotine so much) as well as decisive support condition of contiguity (cittas succeeding one another) and also natural decisive support-condition which includes many factors. ------- Nina. #118021 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Howard, > Phil, I think you may be coming on a bit strong here and in a few > other recent posts. Having a point of view, especially a newly acquired and > fascinating one, can sometimes lead to a tightening up of our mind and to less > than "generous" interactions with folks of different views. Ph: Thanks Howard, no telling, though, whether I post in a "nice" way or not. Based on my current accumulations, "nice" seems likely! I'm selfish, though. DSG is entirely about me and what I get out of it, always has been, that's the way I am. Scott is quite right when he says that nobody can say what cittas lie at the heart of seemingly friendly posters. When I was rejecting A Sujin, I wanted to read posts by people who criticized her, now I consider them a distraction. Intellectual maturity is not a forte of mine! But your post will act as a conditional force for remembering to be nice, or pretend to be nice, I'm sure! Thanks. Metta, Phil > One > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > #118022 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina > > 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? > ----- > N: No, the sense-cognitions (seeing etc.) have as their physical base > eyesense, etc. , thus, ruupas. Apart from these, the other cittas > have the heart-base as their physical base. Ph: Thanks, I had better re-read the ADL chapter on doors and bases. Metta, Phil #118023 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again I wrote: When I was rejecting A Sujin, I wanted to read posts by people who criticized her, now I consider them a distraction. Intellectual maturity is not a forte of mine! Correction - nobody is criticizing her, only I was childish enough to do that. And one other long absent fellow I can think of :) Metta, Phil > > > > > One > > > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > > > (Anonymous) > > > > > > > > > #118024 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:32 am Subject: Decisive continguity condition ( was Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition) philofillet Hi Nina, all. > decisive support condition of contiguity (cittas > succeeding one another) I should just re-read about paccayas rather than asking, but... Does "decisive" mean that there is no other possible result? For example, in citta process, when there has been the first javana, no possibility other than the next javana, so the first javana is decisive continguity condition. But when, for example, with bhavanga cittas, a bhavanga citta may arise after another one, or not, depending on whether a sense door object arises to break the series. So bhavangas condition each other by contiguity condition, but not decisive contiguity condition? Scott, you're into the paccayas, maybe you could tackle this one and lighten Nina's considerable posting load! Metta, Phil #118025 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:10 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Rob E > > Kamma patha takes place on three levels - thought, speech and action. as far as I understand, the intense level of intention that results in realization through action creates the strongest kamma. > > Thoughts of murder do create kamma, but actually murdering someone creates much much heavier akusala Ph: Akusala kamma patha is strong enough to condition rebirth in a woeful realm, if I understand correctly, if there are several factors to make it a "full course" kamma, or something like that. As for intensity, I find prompted vs unprompted cittas interesting. If you're persuaded to do a bad deed the ciita (and I assume the kamma) is weaker than if the deed arises spontaneously.., Thanks for the wiki info. Idle chatter? You and I are in trouble, my comrade in whipped creamery...:) Moment of sincere friendliness confirmed and accumulated! CLICK. metta, phil Metta Phil #118026 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:53 am Subject: Re: Chariot simile means that there is a self?: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear RobertK, Scott, Phil, all, That quote in SN5.10 does not reject the existence of conventional living being that can make choices or influence something. "when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living being". That sutta is not meant to refute the existence of living being as anicca, dukkha, anatta sum of its parts. The Dhamma focuses more on experience rather than ontology and the third verse was about the emphasis "For only stress is what comes to be; stress, what remains & falls away. Nothing but stress comes to be. Nothing ceases but stress." . We add additional dukkha. Our actions can create more dukkha or diminish it. My post was continuation of effort and was regarding: 1) The mistake of rejecting the whole (person) because none of its parts are equal to the whole. The person has emergent properties and is supervinient on them. 2) Just because paramattha dhammas cannot influence other dhammas, it doesn't necessary mean that Person as an emergent phenomena cannot influence anything (such as wholesome dhammas to arise). It is called fallacy of composition: The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html (Emergent property) A new, uniquie property that predictably or unpredictably comes from a combination of two simpler constituents. http://www.seaweb.org/resources/ebm/ebmglossary.php (emergent property) An irreducible feature (now commonly called supervenient) of a complex whole that cannot be inferred directly from the features of its simpler parts. ... http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e.htm Some use the famous "chariot simile" (first mentioned in SN 5.10) to demonstrate that chariot and wholes, and by comparison "a person" does not exist. The argument from "Questions of Milinda" goes as follows: When we take a chariot and ask "Is the axle the chariot?... Are the wheels the chariot?...Is the chariot-body the chariot?...Is the flagstaff...the yoke...the reins...Is the Goad-stick the chariot? " the answer will be "no" to each one. Thus in such reductionist analysis one fails to find the whole (chariot) in each of its parts. However such line of inquiry can be used on other complex things: In order for eye-consciousness to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity , visible object, light and attention. Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma 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 reducible to sum of matter? Is mentality just a lot of matter? Eye consciousness is an emergent phenomena that has different qualities that are not found in its components. Same with a chariot or any other complex whole such as a person. Instead of eye-consciousness we can put "a person" and instead of its four causes we can put aggregates. With best wishes, Alex #118027 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: Does this seem familiar?... >"...Same argument. Dubious company if not source. >http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm It is good that others have seen through the faulty application of Chariot simile. However please don't attack the person. It is called "Ad Hominem" to attack a person, and "Guilt by association" (or association fallacy) to attack an argument merely by who it is associated with. Lets stick the to discussing the argument and not the person or people who say it. With best wishes, Alex #118028 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "It is good that others have seen through the faulty application of Chariot simile. However please don't attack the person. It is called 'Ad Hominem' to attack a person, and 'Guilt by association' (or association fallacy) to attack an argument merely by who it is associated with. Lets stick the to discussing the argument and not the person or people who say it." Scott: I think that is silly. What person is being attacked except for the 'person' in your/~Na.naviira's thesis? Your argument is full of holes. You believe in 'person' and suggest 'person' is anicca, dukkha, and anatta. I think the view is totally dubious. I think you are serving warmed-over ~Na.naviira. If you were unaware of that, now you are; if you were paraphrasing, acknowledging the source might have been a good idea. You might want to lay off the Philosophy 101 as well, lest you begin to appear like one of those scholars you are so fond of disparaging (when you refer to some of us on this very list - ad-hominem? - pot-kettle-black? - I don't care?). Sincerely, Scott. #118029 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, all, >A: "It is good that others have seen through the faulty application >of Chariot simile. However please don't attack the person. It is >called 'Ad Hominem' to attack a person, and 'Guilt by association' >(or association fallacy) to attack an argument merely by who it is >associated with. Lets stick the to discussing the argument and not >the person or people who say it." > >Scott: I think that is silly. What person is being attacked except >for the 'person' in your/~Na.naviira's thesis? >=========================================================== What person is attacked? >S:"I think you are serving warmed-over ~Na.naviira." Rather than talking about an argument, you talk about me and about Venerable Nanavira. Just because we have somewhat similar objections to misuse of chariot metaphor, it doesn't mean that it is false simply because he is Ven. Nanavira. >Scott: (when you refer to some of us on this very list >================ Are you using Ad hominem tu quoque? I stick to the issue and not names. Furthermore you haven't disproven the argument of what I have said. >S: Your argument is full of holes. >=============================== Show them then. >Scott: You believe in 'person' and >suggest >'person' is anicca, >dukkha, and anatta. >==================================================== So did Gotama when He saw a old man, sick man, dead man and a monk. Are you saying that person is not anicca-dukkha-anatta? Gee, we must be eternally happy beings that never age, get sick, die or have things happen contrary to wishes? With best wishes, Alex #118030 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:39 am Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Thoughts of murder do create kamma, but actually murdering someone creates much much heavier akusala > > Ph: Akusala kamma patha is strong enough to condition rebirth in a woeful realm, if I understand correctly, if there are several factors to make it a "full course" kamma, or something like that. Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) that while mental factors/intention is the root of all kamma, as it becomes realized in speech and action it becomes heavier/more complete. So the idle thought of murder is kamma 1, the plan to murder [speech] is kamma 2, and the carrying out of murder is complete kamma patha or kamma 3, the heaviest kamma. Aren't you glad I didn't write the Abhidhamma? :-))) > As for intensity, I find prompted vs unprompted cittas interesting. If you're persuaded to do a bad deed the ciita (and I assume the kamma) is weaker than if the deed arises spontaneously.., That's very interesting. I'd like to apply this to my favorite example, that a/ it's okay for monks to eat meat if someone else kills the animal, but b/ it's not okay to eat the meat if it is 'specially prepared for the monk to eat,' in other words if the animal was killed on behalf of that monk's meal, and c/ what would happen if the monk, or someone on behalf of the monk persuaded the person to prepare that meal/kill that animal. Who gets the kamma? > Thanks for the wiki info. Idle chatter? You and I are in trouble, my comrade in whipped creamery...:) Heh heh, none of my chatter is idle, creamy or otherwise. It's all *very important.* ;-) > Moment of sincere friendliness confirmed and accumulated! CLICK. Metta received and reciprocated! Rob E. out! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118031 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "What person is attacked?..." The concept you posit suggesting it is a dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #118032 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, > A: "What person is attacked?..." > >S: The concept you posit suggesting it is a dhamma. >============================================== Why do you think that I suggested it to be a dhamma? And what do you mean by dhamma in that context? Teaching about people and events is part of Dhamma. Buddha often talked about people and their interactions between each other. Something that doesn't exist cannot interact, affect and be affected by something. With best wishes, Alex #118033 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:22 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Rob E > > Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) Ph: That flipped my "stop reading here" switch. Thank you for the warning! :) Metta, Phil #118034 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Why do you think that I suggested it to be a dhamma?" Scott: Please focus Alex, it's because you wrote: You: "...The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta." A: "And what do you mean by dhamma in that context?..." Scott: Only dhammas, not concepts (such as 'person'), have these three qualities. You already know this. Sincerely, Scott. #118035 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, all, >Scott: Only dhammas, not concepts (such as 'person'), have these three >qualities. >=========== So Gotama never stopped perceiving concepts? After all, "How could a concept fall away?" How can something that is not anicca cease? So sick & old person doesn't experience dukkha, isn't anicca and is not anatta? It is experiential truth that people get old, get sick and die. An object can be built, and then it can be destroyed. It is experiential truth. With best wishes, Alex #118036 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - In a message dated 9/29/2011 5:39:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Alex, A: "Why do you think that I suggested it to be a dhamma?" Scott: Please focus Alex, it's because you wrote: You: "...The person is still anicca, dukkha, and anatta." A: "And what do you mean by dhamma in that context?..." Scott: Only dhammas, not concepts (such as 'person'), have these three qualities. You already know this. Sincerely, Scott. ===================================== In SN 36.7 there is the following: Note the sentence "And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen." But fundamentally, you are correct, Scott. The impermanence of the body is derivative, derived from the primary impermanence of paramattha dhammas. In that regard, there is the following in AN 10.60: With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118037 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:42 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt, ------ <. . .> >> KH: Only the other sort (intellectualising that *is* accompanied by panna) will lead to more panna. pt: Wait a second, that other sort would be pariyatti, no? Which then means there's a whole step missing in between - i.e. there seems to be a pregress straight from akusala thinking to pariyatti, which would suggest that akusala thinking conditions kusala at some point? I was under the impression before that there's something called "right intellectual understanding" or "right thinking", which is not the same as pariyatti - i.e. no panna yet about (concepts of) present realities, but it is not akusala either! So what kind of animal is that? Because at the moment you seem to be saying there's no such thing in the first place? ----- KH: As I understand it, hearing the Dhamma is vipakka (pleasant vipakka), which can arise at any time. In Angulimala's case, for example, it arose while he was trying to kill the Buddha. Angulimala was a serial killer with 999 victims. So right understanding happened during his normal daily life. :-) There was no need for trying (rite and ritual) to make it happen. Panna arose to wisely consider what had been heard, and it arose because there had been panna in previous lifetimes. I don't know the origins of the very first panna. Ask someone else about that. :-) Ken H #118038 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Howard, Scott, all, >The impermanence of the body is derivative, derived from the >primary impermanence of paramattha dhammas. >============================================ Yes, the physical body is impermanent because it depends upon impermanent conditions and this impermanence can be seen and used for Awakening. So concepts like the body can arise and cease. "There is the case where a monk, as day departs and night returns, reflects: 'Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm... piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about." ... "Monks, mindfulness of death — when developed & pursued — is of great fruit & great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118039 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "So Gotama never stopped perceiving concepts? After all, 'How could a concept fall away?' How can something that is not anicca cease?" Scott: Just so you know, any sentence starting with 'so' is just begging to be ignored. (Unless you were like 'so, like Gotama never stopped perceiving concept?' and then I'd be like, so is Alex like fifteen or something?) That notwithstanding, no one has ever said the 'Gotama stopped perceiving concepts.' Concepts are time-freed. Sincerely, Scott. #118040 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:20 am Subject: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, All, >S: Concepts are time-freed. Does this mean that concepts are independent of time? Does this means that concept never ceases, even for the Buddha after parinibbana? Do concepts ever arise? If they never arise then how could Gotama see some concepts for the first time? Gotama saw an old man, a sick man and a dead man. He was not timelessly aware of these concepts. They arose at certain time, and at certain time they ceased. The idea of concepts being eternal, or without ceasing, goes against anicca teaching of the Buddha. With best wishes, Alex #118041 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:23 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi KenH, > > pt: ok, so basically, for you saying that "there is no self" is essentially the same as saying that all dhammas have anatta characteristic? Right? > -------- > > KH: Yes, as I understand it, to know one dhamma as anatta is to know all dhammas are anatta. > > In the same way the other phrase "this is not my self" also means "all dhammas are not my self." pt: ok, though "all dhammas are not myself" still seems to be some way off from the literal meaning of "there is no self". We can agree that the two phrases mean the same thing, but most people don't assume that when they first hear "there is no self". > KH: I like the way the suttas tell it. In one where the Buddha is asked `Why didn't you answer Vochagatta (sp?)(the wanderer's) question?" he says something like, `Haven't I made it perfectly plain to you that there are only dhammas, and all dhammas are not self?' pt: ok, though that's still not saying explicitly "there is no self" when explaining anatta. > > pt: Therefore, I still maintain that using "khanda is not self" is a more skillful > approach to explaining anatta than "there is no self". > -------------------------- > > KH: No, I don't think so. I am sure in the Buddha's day there was detailed discussion of all aspects of Dhamma, and the phrase "there is no self" would have been commonly used. We certainly shouldn't be reluctant to use it. pt: ok, perhaps in the Buddha's time they used the phrase often. This is no longer the Buddha's time, and for today's western buddhist laity it seems the four nikayas are the only hard currency, if at all. So all I'm saying is that it's good to have references. So far, the only sutta I've seen that comes close to "there is no self" when referring to anatta is the one that RobK just posted about Vajira from SN, though he uses "there is no being", and not strictly in terms of explaining anatta. Would be good to have more sutta references from the four nikayas. Best wishes pt #118042 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:12 am Subject: Re Fear ( was[dsg] Re: Developing Faith, no 2. philofillet Hi Lukas I remember in my late 20s I developed intense fear for a few weeks, I could barely function. At that tine I started into looking into religions, and eventually that led to Dhamma, but I remember one lucky thing was that I started doing volunteer English teaching to immigrants, it helped direct me away from a complete obsession with myself. (And led to my career as a teacher aa well.) Note the end of this very good letter from Nina. Sometimes I get the impression you are really tightly trapped in The Story of Lukas. Maybe my advice is too simplistic, and maybe you don't have time, but perhaps doing some volunteer work would help get you out of the Lukas Trap. Anyways, a good letter from Nina, from Useful Posts. Hope it's helpful. > Dear Herman, > I wanted to add something to my post on impermanence, but Yahoo decreed > otherwise and sent it out suddenly. > But it never is too late. > You said: source of comfort and faith when in a deep pit. > > This is only thinking about the fact that all things change, and a person > who had a loss or is very sad about something may not be conforted when he > just hears: things will change. As I said, only through insight impermanence > of what occurs at this very moment can be realized. But the person who is in > a pit may not be so far yet. How to help? To let him see that whatever > happens in life are phenomena arising because of conditions. Kamma is one of > the conditions. Because of kamma one has to experience gain and loss, praise > and blame, honour and dishonour, bodily wellbeing and bodily pain. When one > sees life as conditioned phenomena it helps to take events less personally. > We can learn that there are seeing, hearing, thinking, happiness, sadness, > bodily phenomena. In short, we can learn that what we take for me or another > person are: citta or consciousness, cetasika, mental qualities arising with > the citta, and rupa, physical phenomena. This can help to be less involved > with one's sorrow. I find it very helpful to read in the suttas about the > separation of the six doors: seeing is quite different from hearing. > Different objects are experienced through different doorways. This reminds > us to develop more understanding of whatever appears at this moment. And > also, performing all kinds of kusala helps. Because then one is less bent > upon oneself, one forgets oneself and thinks of one's fellowmen. > Nina. > op 27-07-2004 00:25 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofman@...: > > > I wonder whether impermanence itself is dukkha, or whether it is the > > looking for "our refuge" that is dukkha. Impermanence in itself is not a > > problem, in fact knowing that all things must and will change can be a > > great source of comfort and faith when in a deep pit. It is wanting > > things that have been labeled me, mine and I to stay the same so that > > the mirage of a self can be perpetuated a little longer. With the > > evaporation of self-view, the nature of reality does not alter. If > > impermanence in itself were dukkha, then there would be no end to > > suffering. > #118043 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:40 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----- >> 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? >> > HCW: 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. ----- KH: I don't believe beings are heir to their kamma. Nor do I believe they are not heirs to their kamma: or that they are both heirs and not heirs: or that they are neither. When the Buddha said beings were heir to their kamma he had already told us there were no beings in ultimate reality and that what he meant when he said "a being" was just a single momentary arising of the five khandhas. --------------- > HCW: In any case, read what the Buddha actually said in the quoted material. It is perfectly clear. --------------- KH: Yes, it is perfectly clear, but only when it is read in the context of the Dhamma as a whole. Ken H #118044 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:11 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > > > Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) > > Ph: That flipped my "stop reading here" switch. Thank you for the warning! :) Oh that's too bad. You would have enjoyed the rest of the [short] post. It was personalized for you. Oh well.... :-( Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118045 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott, and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > That notwithstanding, no one has ever said the 'Gotama stopped perceiving concepts.' Concepts are time-freed. In what sense are concepts time-freed? I realize it's a point of understanding that they don't actually exist as such, but they are objects of citta that arise and fall, are they not? So while they may not be seen as arising or falling away as dhammas do, the cittas that experience them still only experience them one moment at a time, and so there is no sense in which they are free from being experienced at particular moments "in time" and not at others. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118046 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:22 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Rob E Sorry about that. But I think it's a valid point. It's interesting for intelligent people (as we all are here) to speculate and come up with theories, but the teachings have come down to us, thankfully. Isn't it best to stick as close as possible to them? Metta, Phil > > = = = = = = = = = > #118047 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:22 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) > > > > Ph: That flipped my "stop reading here" switch. Thank you for the warning! :) > > Oh that's too bad. You would have enjoyed the rest of the [short] post. It was personalized for you. Oh well.... :-( And also, the "theory" that continued was actually pretty good and on topic for what we were discussing. I didn't just make it up. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #118048 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:24 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > Sorry about that. But I think it's a valid point. It's interesting for intelligent people (as we all are here) to speculate and come up with theories, but the teachings have come down to us, thankfully. Isn't it best to stick as close as possible to them? Funny, I just wrote you a post about that. It really wasn't that speculative - it was derived from the list of kamma patha elements we were discussing and makes sense, even though I was joking about introducing it. If you take a look, you can draw your own conclusion, but I wasn't just making stuff up. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #118049 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:27 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Rob > And also, the "theory" that continued was actually pretty good and on topic for what we were discussing. I didn't just make it up. > Ok, maybe I misunderstood "theory", I took it to mean pwrsonal interpretation. I'll cgeck it out later, thanks . :) Metta, Phil #118050 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:28 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob > > > And also, the "theory" that continued was actually pretty good and on topic for what we were discussing. I didn't just make it up. > > > Ok, maybe I misunderstood "theory", I took it to mean pwrsonal interpretation. I'll cgeck it out later, thanks . :) No prob. If you find it too jovial, I'll be happy to rephrase. I just think the kamma patha discussion is potentially fruitful, so don't want to short-circuit it by seeming too giddy. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118051 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:36 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hu Rib E > No prob. If you find it too jovial, I'll be happy to rephrase. I just think the kamma patha discussion is potentially fruitful, so don't want to short-circuit it by seeming too giddy. > Ph: Despite my talk of whipped creamery (I think tgere is something called bean >soupery in the texts, as an example of some kind of wring speech) joviality is no problem. I was thinking of content. Your idea sounds in tge right direction but we're better off waiting until someone helps us with the actual teaching. I bet you anything it's my Dhamma Mommy Sarah!!!! See I can out gid you any day!!! Metta, Phil #118052 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:51 pm Subject: RE: Re Fear ( was[dsg] Re: Developing Faith, no 2. dhammasaro Good friend Lucas, et al If I may, FWIW, I agree with good friend Phil. My recent recurrent fear... Most of my life I have been blessed with no fears in all the endeavors I desired. However, I do have at least one fear - fear of dentistry... a couple of years age, my good dentists wanted to extract two lower jaw rear teeth (as I had exceedingly pain there) at the same time. I asked why not one and later, the other. They said no. Now note, I have been been going to these Bangkok dentists over ten years. Never did I ever have pain. Within days I began to have all types of heart irregularities which really scared me!!! I called back to USA to my best friend & lover (read as "wife") for help as she is a retired nurse. She said, "Go to the Bangkok General Hospital!!!" Stupid me, I said, "No!!! You come first!!! Use my frequent flyer miles." She did... In the meantime, I called my USA medical insurance and they said the same. Well, after all the testing the medicos found my heart was very healthy for my age. What they did find; I had a very large gall stone. So, I went back to the hospital and they disintegrated with ultrasonics. No pain to me. (BTW, they were polite in not referring me to a "head doctor" [grins]) So far, I have not had any pain from those two teeth!!! They still are intact!!! In my case, my mental fear of dentistry caused physical malfunctions. Imho, meditation, especially, loving kindness meditation, has helped me. In addition, helping others not as fortunate as I am; has helped me over the years. It reinforces how most fortunate I am. peace to you my good friend Lukas... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: philco777@... Hi Lukas I remember in my late 20s I developed intense fear for a few weeks, I could barely function. At that tine I started into looking into religions, and eventually that led to Dhamma, but I remember one lucky thing was that I started doing volunteer English teaching to immigrants, it helped direct me away from a complete obsession with myself. <....> #118053 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Glad to hear your specialist appointment was encouraging. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Thanks for that clarification. As you know, I tend to believe that the > various types of material form - bodily sensations, sights, sounds, > tastes, and smells - arise merely as object-contents-of-consciousness and not > "externally" (in the experience-independent sense), but, of course, I do not > KNOW this, and I can certainly see that your middle-way view, i.e., > objectivist but with a phenomenological emphasis, might well be the correct one. :-) .... S: If we take a moment of seeing as an example. In order for seeing consciousness to arise and experience a visible object, the visible object and eye-sense must have arisen already, prior to the arising of seeing consciousness. They are essential conditions, along with past kamma, for seeing to arise. There are countless zillions of rupas arising and falling away all the time, but if there are no conditions for them to be experienced, they can never be known. If this makes the Buddha's Teachings and especially the Abhidhamma a "middle-way view, i.e., objectivitst but with a phenomenological emphasis", then so be it :-) Of course, it's not how the Buddha defined the Middle Way, but words are just there to convey meanings, not for getting hung up over!! Metta Sarah =========== #118054 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:55 pm Subject: Re: Chariot simile means that there is a self?: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 dear Alex You are really going wrong. That sutta does in fact reject living beings as being anything other than conventional designations. robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear RobertK, Scott, Phil, all, > > > That quote in SN5.10 does not reject the existence of conventional living being that can make choices or influence something. > "when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living being". > > That sutta is not meant to refute the existence of living being as anicca, dukkha, anatta sum of its parts. > > > The Dhamma focuses more on experience rather than ontology and the third verse was about the emphasis "For only stress is what comes to be; stress, what remains & falls away. Nothing but stress comes to be. Nothing ceases but stress." . > > We add additional dukkha. Our actions can create more dukkha or diminish it. > > My post was continuation of effort and was regarding: > 1) The mistake of rejecting the whole (person) because none of its parts are equal to the whole. The person has emergent properties and is supervinient on them. > > > 2) Just because paramattha dhammas cannot influence other dhammas, it doesn't necessary mean that Person as an emergent phenomena cannot influence anything (such as wholesome dhammas to arise). It is called fallacy of composition: > > The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html > > (Emergent property) A new, uniquie property that predictably or unpredictably comes from a combination of two simpler constituents. > http://www.seaweb.org/resources/ebm/ebmglossary.php > > (emergent property) An irreducible feature (now commonly called supervenient) of a complex whole that cannot be inferred directly from the features of its simpler parts. ... > http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e.htm > > > > Some use the famous "chariot simile" (first mentioned in SN 5.10) to demonstrate that chariot and wholes, and by comparison "a person" does not exist. The argument from "Questions of Milinda" goes as follows: When we take a chariot and ask "Is the axle the chariot?... Are the wheels the chariot?...Is the chariot-body the chariot?...Is the flagstaff...the yoke...the reins...Is the Goad-stick the chariot? " the answer will be "no" to each one. Thus in such reductionist analysis one fails to find the whole (chariot) in each of its parts. > > However such line of inquiry can be used on other complex things: > In order for eye-consciousness to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity , visible object, light and attention. Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma 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 reducible to sum of matter? Is mentality just a lot of matter? Eye consciousness is an emergent phenomena that has different qualities that are not found in its components. Same with a chariot or any other complex whole such as a person. > > Instead of eye-consciousness we can put "a person" and instead of its four causes we can put aggregates. > > > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #118055 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:56 pm Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: S:Vis. XVI: > > > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; > > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." > > ======================= > >A: First of all, is that quote traceble to the Buddha? ... S: All the teachings recited at the ancient Councils by the Theras are the Buddha's Teachings. These include the ancient commentaries such as the Vism. ... > > Second of all, it denies Hindu Atman. It doesn't deny empirical self, and neither does VsM denies empirical self. .... S: All the Teachings are about the conditioned dhammas, the khandhas and the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. Nothing else exists. ... > > > > How could the "actor" be experienced now? Which doorway? > > .... > > Though all six or less. .... S: What is experienced through the eye-door? What is experienced through the ear-door? Is actor visible object? Is actor sound? Right now, what is experienced through the eye-door? .... > >S: SN 22:17 (BB transl): > > > > "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, form is > > nonself.....Feeling....Perception...Volitional > > formations....Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be > > seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, > > this I am not, this is not my self.' > > > > "Seeing thus....He understands: 'there is no more for this state of > > being.'" > >========================================================= > >A: This just rejects that any aggregates are Atman that is nicca and sukkha. .... S: He says that form (rupa) is anatta. He then says that vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana are anatta. This means, there are just rupas and namas, no atta of any kind. I think it's very clearly said in the sutta itself. ... > > It is incorrect to say that "Since ABCDE is not-self, there is no self". .... S: When it is clearly said that ABCDE is the "All", that there is nothing else and that ABCDE is anatta, we can conclude that there is no Atta to be found. .... > > It is also another mistake to say: "since these are not atta that has characteristics of nicca and sukkha , then there is no atta of any kind." . There can be other ideas of atta, not necessarily one that is nicca and sukkha. ... S: Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta. Just dhammas - all anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #118056 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:00 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Thanks Sarah, appreciated all your notes on the rupas and other issues. I wonder, when the Buddha is able to see the creation of worlds, etc., with his omniscience, are those special cittas that are able to see such objects [as worlds, galaxies, etc.] and are the objects of those cittas rupas or concepts? ... S: With his omniscient wisdom, the Buddha could directly experience and understand any nama or rupa which he put his mind to. We can never over-estimate his omniscient abilities. See many good quotes under "omniscience" in 'Useful Posts". Here's one I gave before: From the Sub-cy to the Brahmajaala Sutta (transl. by B.Bodhi, BPS,p.123): "Query: .....how is possible for a single, limited type of knowledge to penetrate without omission the entire range of the knowable with its inconceivable, immeasurable sub-divisions? "Reply: Who says the Buddha-knowledge is limited? Like the knowable itself the Buddha-knowledge is infinite. For it is said: 'As far as that knowledge extends, so far does the knowable extend; as far as the knowable extends, so far does that knowledge extend' (Pts.1.i.72). It may be objected that if the knowable, with its numerous sub-divisions by way of class, plane, specific nature, etc., and by way of direction, place, time, etc., is apprehended in succession, it is impossible to penetrate it in its totality, without remainder. "But that is not so. Why? Because whatever it is that the Exalted One wishes to know, whether in its entirety or in part, that he knows by direct experience through the unimpeded coursing (of his knowledge) in that object." .... Metta Sarah ======= #118057 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:14 pm Subject: Re: Sati or facile speculations? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I'd like to find a topic that we could discuss for awhile. > > I know a lot of people like posts that include reflection on dhammas in daily life, I like reading and writing them too. But there is also wondering about just what is going on in those posts? .... S: Just more dhammas rolling on... ! ... > For example, this that you quoted from Mike N, who writes very good posts like this, I will always remember cribbage with Rose. > > > >I noticed, while watching the images on TV and on my > > computer screen, that interspersed between the moments > > of dosa and patigha and moments of karunaa for those > > suffering pain and fear, were moments of lobha--for > > the beautiful photography of the blue sky and the > > billowing clouds of flame and smoke; for the awareness > > of my relative personal safety; for the unfolding of > > the story; and even moments of none-of-the-above when > > hearing a sound or touching something tangible was > > predominant for a moment--in those moments, no dosa or > > patigha or karunaa at all with regards to these events > > (or rather my concepts of them)--just liking or > > disliking or indifference to those sense-impingements. > > Ph: I write this with complete respect for Mike N, and I could easily imagine myself writing this sort of thing, but why do we think there is awareness of such fleeting dhammas in daily life rather than just facile speculation about what what kind of dhammas were likely to be arising, based on the conceptual context? .... S: I don't think Mike (in this example) or others in similar posts are suggesting that there is necessarily awareness of "such fleeting dhammas". I don't begin to speculate or be concerned about whether there really was/is awareness of fleeting dhammas when others write or whether it is (wise) reflection "based on the conceptual context". Again, only panna will know. If it is "facile speculation" rather than wise reflection when we write, those too are dhammas that can be known when they arise. Again, just dhammas, not Mike's wise/unwise reflection or anyone else's. ..... > >P: If there really was sati of such fleeting moments, would our experience of it be clear enough to write about it later? I was going to write a post about yesterday's big typhoon and dhammas that were arising before, during and after, but I held off cuz I want to think about the value of that sort of thing.... .... S: Again, I don't think we have to set any rules. As we've all been saying, each to his/her own style. What might work for Mike, might not work for me or you. I remember your good posts during the earthquake and would be glad to read your reflections about your big typhoon and dhammas. There's no point in counting or speculating about moments of awareness, otherwise it's just more about "ME" and "MY" experiences, forgetting about the present dhammas appearing now. Btw, we had a big typhoon here yesterday. The first no 8 for a couple of years. During a no 8. the whole city closes down, planes diverted, offices closed.... a real ghost city. More dhammas rolling on, just like now! ... > Mike, I hope you come back soon. Well, both Mikes! .... S: Likewise, all Mikes! Metta Sarah ===== #118058 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: worry, was :atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Kh Sujin said > something very helpful, also for me when I worry: > thinking about them. When we are seeing, there is no thinking. The > stories have no foundation, there is only what sa~n~naa remembers. > > I better take that to heart, but sometimes difficult. .... S: A good reminder for everyone. If there's no thinking about our problems, there's no sad story. I also appreciated her comments which you (Nina) shared on the Sa~n~naa Sutta, #117617: "Life is very short, thre is the experience of colour, of sound, very shortly and then gone" and "Some people cling to the pleasant worldly conditions (possessions, honour, etc.), they think of these the whole day and do not develop anicca sa~n~naa, impermanence of these." Metta Sarah ===== #118059 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > >S: The point of my question was to indicate that dhammas, any dhammas >inc. jhana cittas, arise and fall away by conditions. They cannot be >"used" or made to be objects of insight. > >Anatta! > >================================================ > > Sure that things happen due to conditions. One of the condition is presently arisen intention. .... S: If visible object is the object of insight, it is because visible object was just experienced through the eye-door as a result of past kamma and there were then conditions, primarily natural decisive support condition, for insight (panna) to arise and experience that visible object. Here the natural decisive-support condition refers to the previously accumulated panna and accompanying factors. Cetana arises with every dhamma, so it supports the panna which arises. It doesn't decide or intend to understand visible object at that moment! Exactly the same applies if a jhana citta or a jhana factor is the object of insight. After that citta has fallen away, by natural decisive support condition, panna may arise and directly understand that reality. .... > > > For example you can look to the right or to the left. Each of these actions requires certain conditions (such as functional body and being alive). These are conditions, sure. But the trigger is present intention that you have. I believe that intention in present moment is extremely important. We do not live due to past conditions. The past conditioning sure can play a part (it deals the cards) but how you play with the cards dealt now is dependent on present intentional actions. ..... S: It's difficult when we talk about a situation, such as playing cards because there are so many different dhammas involved, all with their own conditions for their arising. Many dhammas, including cetana, all anatta, all arising by conditions. ... > > As you know, Kamma that one does is not vipaka. Thus one can freely choose to do this or that kamma. One is not a killer, a thief, seducer, liar, or whatever due to past kamma. .... S: No one who does anything. Kamma now by conditions, such as the understanding and wise reflection now on what is wise and unwise. Present conditions are important, but still no one to "freely choose" or do anything else. Suffering is, but no Sufferer. Present kamma, but no one who does kamma! .... > > There is no choice about the occurrence of kammavipaka that will occur. I don't believe that it is correct or prudent to say that > "I couldn't resist... It was meant to happened due to conditions that I did this akusala kamma". .... S: All Self-view and excuses if one speaks like that, not Right View. Metta Sarah ===== #118060 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:58 pm Subject: Re: Considering Dhamma more? sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Lukas, #117736, a great passage and your further "moha roping"/moping comments! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Here is another encouraging passage from SPD, p.201: > > " Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Simetimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it is too weak and fatigue and boredom arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristics of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. Fatigue, weakness and boredom. a feeling of being downcast, in low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they naturally appear, it will not be known that they are not a living being, not a person, not a self. They are only characteristics of citta that arises because of conditions and then falls away again." (end quote) > > Let's not let moha rope us into identifying with our moments of boredom and addiction, let's not get fooled into casting ourselves as the main character in the story of Lukas the tired chain smoker, Phil the frantic porno addict. Those akusala cittas arise and fall away again, they are not us. Understanding is not us eitger, but it will lead us out. .... S: Reminds me that there are a lot of great messages saved in U.P. under: "Discouraged? Depressed? Disappointed? Doubting?" Take a look there Lukas (and anyone else) and share any you think may be helpful for others. Metta Sarah ===== #118061 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:30 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > 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? .... S: Yes, mostly just akusala thinking which accumulates, but not of a strength that can bring results by way of rebirth and so on. To be completed akusala kamma patha, there has to be not only the thought and intention, but the other being harmed and so on. There may be partial kamma patha, when some factors are present, but not all. For example, there may be an intention to kill an insect and the act, but the insect may only be injured. Of all, all akusala thoughts of harming accumulate, and it is through this accumulation that thoughts become strong enough to actually lead to deeds that bring results. So all kamma accumulates. Metta Sarah ====== #118062 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/29/2011 11:40:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ----- >> 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? >> > HCW: 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. ----- KH: I don't believe beings are heir to their kamma. Nor do I believe they are not heirs to their kamma: or that they are both heirs and not heirs: or that they are neither. When the Buddha said beings were heir to their kamma he had already told us there were no beings in ultimate reality and that what he meant when he said "a being" was just a single momentary arising of the five khandhas. --------------- > HCW: In any case, read what the Buddha actually said in the quoted material. It is perfectly clear. --------------- KH: Yes, it is perfectly clear, but only when it is read in the context of the Dhamma as a whole. Ken H =============================== I, of course, wish in general that the Buddha were here, but I'd especially get a kick out of his response to reading what you write about what he "really means". ;-) With warm metta, Howard P. S. BTW, I also believe that there are no beings, if by "a being" one means an individual reality (or entity) as opposed to a layered (mental) construct based ultimately upon a huge aggregate of complexly interrelated namas and rupas. Beings have genuine basis, but in themselves, as separate, individual things, are matters only of thought, speech, and convention. I, however, ascribe only conventional existence (as separate things) to namas and rupas as well. For me, there is but one reality, nibbana, beyond positive description and beyond intellectual apprehension. So, all worldly "things" are matters of convention, from my perspective. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118063 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:55 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex A: "Does this mean that concepts are independent of time?...Do concepts ever arise?" Scott: Time-freed, kala vimutti. Concepts and Nibbaana are kala vimutti. Concepts and Nibbaana are anatta. A: "The idea of concepts being eternal, or without ceasing, goes against anicca teaching of the Buddha." Scott: That concepts are kala vimutti goes only against your own understanding of the matter, Alex. Sincerely, Scott. #118064 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Howard, H: "...But fundamentally, you are correct, Scott. The impermanence of the body is derivative, derived from the primary impermanence of paramattha dhammas." Scott: 'My body' is a concept, as you say, and thus while the ruupaa which make it up arise and fall away, bound by conditions including kamma, the concept 'my body' is merely construed, thought about, an object of the mind - 'derived' as you say and a function and content of thinking. These ruupaa are conditioned dhammaa, with the three characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas and with the characteristic specific to ruupa whereas the concept 'my body' is not conditioned, does not arise and fall away, and while having the characteristic of anatta, is not H: "In that regard, there is the following in AN 10.60: ...'Matter (visible objects) is impermanent; feeling or sensation is impermanent; perception is impermanent; formations are impermanent; consciousness is impermanent. Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates.'.." Scott: No mention of concepts. Sincerely, Scott. #118065 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 And Howard, I always like to finish my sentences: Unfinished Sentence: "...These ruupaa are conditioned dhammaa, with the three characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas and with the characteristic specific to ruupa whereas the concept 'my body' is not conditioned, does not arise and fall away, and while having the characteristic of anatta, is not" Missing Coda: a conditioned dhamma. To make a finer point of it. Sincerely, Scott. #118066 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "In what sense are concepts time-freed? I realize it's a point of understanding that they don't actually exist as such, but they are objects of citta that arise and fall, are they not? So while they may not be seen as arising or falling away as dhammas do, the cittas that experience them still only experience them one moment at a time, and so there is no sense in which they are free from being experienced at particular moments 'in time' and not at others." Scott: See replies to Alex and Howard. Being kala vimutti does not mean concepts are not objects of consciousness. Citta arises and falls away. Concept does not. The apparent 'wholeness,' of things, which you call 'experience,' is construed. Sincerely, Scott. #118067 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 9/30/2011 8:07:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, H: "...But fundamentally, you are correct, Scott. The impermanence of the body is derivative, derived from the primary impermanence of paramattha dhammas." Scott: 'My body' is a concept, as you say, and thus while the ruupaa which make it up arise and fall away, bound by conditions including kamma, the concept 'my body' is merely construed, thought about, an object of the mind - 'derived' as you say and a function and content of thinking. These ruupaa are conditioned dhammaa, with the three characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas and with the characteristic specific to ruupa whereas the concept 'my body' is not conditioned, does not arise and fall away, and while having the characteristic of anatta, is not H: "In that regard, there is the following in AN 10.60: ...'Matter (visible objects) is impermanent; feeling or sensation is impermanent; perception is impermanent; formations are impermanent; consciousness is impermanent. Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates.'.." Scott: No mention of concepts. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, quite right. However, in the other quoted material there is said "And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen." If we can, I think it best to look at all that is said and avoid picking and choosing. (Of course, I pick & choose all the time! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118068 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: Re: Considering Dhamma more? szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: Reminds me that there are a lot of great messages saved in U.P. under: > > "Discouraged? Depressed? Disappointed? Doubting?" > > Take a look there Lukas (and anyone else) and share any you think may be helpful for others. L: Better I will listen to Acharn Sujin recordings. Now I am in need of paperbook Survey of Paramatha Dhamma. Best wishes Lukas #118069 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Considering Dhamma more? nilovg Dear Sarah, Lukas, Phil, Op 30-sep-2011, om 11:58 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: Reminds me that there are a lot of great messages saved in U.P. > under: > > "Discouraged? Depressed? Disappointed? Doubting?" > > Take a look there Lukas (and anyone else) and share any you think > may be helpful for others. ------ N: Excellent idea. There are so many messages under U.P. and hard to find time to go over them. I appreciate the way Phil shares from Survey, very helpful. ------ Nina. #118070 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:44 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, >A: "Does this mean that concepts are independent of time?...Do >concepts ever arise?" > >Scott: Time-freed, kala vimutti. Concepts and Nibbaana are kala >vimutti. Concepts and Nibbaana are anatta. >============= Are you putting concepts on the same level as Nibbana? With best wishes, Alex #118071 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:53 am Subject: Re: Chariot simile means that there is a self?: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear RobertK, all, >dear Alex >You are really going wrong. That sutta does in fact reject living >beings as being anything other than conventional designations. >============ "A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html Buddha never denied the existence of a person as a conditioned phenomena dependent on the 5 aggregates. With best wishes, Alex #118072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Decisive continguity condition ( was Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 29-sep-2011, om 16:32 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Does "decisive" mean that there is no other possible result? For > example, in citta process, when there has been the first javana, no > possibility other than the next javana, so the first javana is > decisive continguity condition. But when, for example, with > bhavanga cittas, a bhavanga citta may arise after another one, or > not, depending on whether a sense door object arises to break the > series. So bhavangas condition each other by contiguity condition, > but not decisive contiguity condition? ------- N:It is a strong condition. The last bhavanga-citta before a process begins, conditions the following citta, in this case a process citta, by contiguity-condition, they do not have to be of the same type like in the case of repetition-condition, asevana paccaya. As to decisive support-condition, this emphasizes powerful inducement of the conditioning force. It also pertains to each citta that conditions the following citta without there being an interval. Because of my break, see you after the coming week, Nina. #118073 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:01 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Are you putting concepts on the same level as Nibbana?" Scott: As any reader can see, that is exactly what is being said. When two things are joined under one conceptual heading, they are automatically equated. Hence, as you so astutely conclude, when both concepts and Nibbaana are said to be kala vimutti, this means that concepts and Nibbaana are 'on the same level' as pertains to being both kala vimutti. You likely also conclude that, in suggesting that both concepts and Nibaana are kala vimutti, it is being suggested that Nibaana *is* only a concept. I am looking forward to your response. I enjoy brilliant displays of rigtheous indignation due to absolutely failing to comprehend what is being said. Sincerely, Scott. #118074 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:07 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view truth_aerator Dear Sarah, RobertK, all, >S: What is experienced through the eye-door? (Alex: color) >What is experienced through the ear-door? (Alex: sound) >Is actor visible object? Is actor sound? (Alex: no to both) >==================================== In order for seeing to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity , visible object, light and attention. CMA pg 151 Is seeing = Eye sensitivity? No. Is seeing = visible (ruparammana) object ? No. Is seeing = light ? No. Is seeing = attention (manasikara)? No. So does this mean that seeing doesn't exist since it cannot be found in any parts of this seeing process? Is the function of seeing (eye-consciousness) being mental (nama) reducible to sum of matter (rupa)? Is mentality (nama) just a lot of matter (rupa)? Seeing is an emergent phenomena that has different qualities that are not found in its components. Same with the person. It is emergent phenomena like eye-consciousness is to its underlying conditions. "A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118075 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:13 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, > A: "Are you putting concepts on the same level as Nibbana?" > Scott: As any reader can see, that is exactly what is being said. >================================================= Why is Nibbana a paramattha dhamma while concepts are not? With best wishes, Alex #118076 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:49 am Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote : I still have another mail of you to answer, but I have a break coming week and not sure about my time. D: looking forward to it and thanks for your time. I intend to look through the whole exchange of this topic and try an extract later N: We all agree that intellectual understanding is not enough. D: yes.. to be continued ;-) with Metta Dieter #118077 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:59 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Why is Nibbana a paramattha dhamma while concepts are not?" Scott: Because Nibbaana, as the unconditioned element, is a reality, and has characteristics and thus is a paramattha dhamma. Concepts are simply not paramattha dhammas. They have no characteristics. You've heard all this before. Sincerely, Scott. #118078 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and all) - In a message dated 9/30/2011 11:59:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Because Nibbaana, as the unconditioned element, is a reality, and has characteristics and thus is a paramattha dhamma. ================================== Does it have characteristics, or is it the absence of characteristics that pertains to it? It is UNconditioned, UNchanging, NotSelf, etc. (Of course, one could say that 'unchanging' and 'permanent' are synonyms. Yet without other (positive) qualities, what about it is permanent?) One question that occurs to me is what "being unconditioned" subsumes. Is it just that it is uncaused, or is it also that it is without conditions, i.e., without qualities? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118079 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 3:04 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, KenH, All, >A: "Why is Nibbana a paramattha dhamma while concepts are not?" > >Scott: Because Nibbaana, as the unconditioned element, is a >reality, >and has characteristics and thus is a paramattha dhamma. >Concepts are >simply not paramattha dhammas. They have no characteristics. You've >heard all this before. >================== If concepts have no characteristic then there is no difference in characteristics between a chair on which you are sitting, or the screen which you are looking at? Are you saying there is no difference in characteristics between spoon and a fork? You can't eat soup with a fork, but only with the spoon. Are you saying there is no difference between taste of sugar or salt? Since concepts are supposed to never arise or fall, does that mean that chairs, monitors, spoon, fork, sugar, salt are eternal and never fall apart? Concepts are great things to cling to by conceptual beings... They never cease, so it is something that Person (as a timless concept) can eternally possess... With metta, Alex #118080 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 4:20 am Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Phil, and Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hu Rib E > > No prob. If you find it too jovial, I'll be happy to rephrase. I just think the kamma patha discussion is potentially fruitful, so don't want to short-circuit it by seeming too giddy. > > > Ph: Despite my talk of whipped creamery (I think tgere is something called bean >soupery in the texts, as an example of some kind of wring speech) joviality is no problem. I was thinking of content. Your idea sounds in tge right direction but we're better off waiting until someone helps us with the actual teaching. I bet you anything it's my Dhamma Mommy Sarah!!!! I was hoping she would say something about this - but she is busy, so "no rush," you know... :-) > See I can out gid you any day!!! Oh, well, we'll see! :-/ Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118081 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 4:22 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: With his omniscient wisdom, the Buddha could directly experience and understand any nama or rupa which he put his mind to. We can never over-estimate his omniscient abilities. Thanks, Sarah. I also appreciated the quote, which was very good. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118082 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 4:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "In what sense are concepts time-freed? I realize it's a point of understanding that they don't actually exist as such, but they are objects of citta that arise and fall, are they not? So while they may not be seen as arising or falling away as dhammas do, the cittas that experience them still only experience them one moment at a time, and so there is no sense in which they are free from being experienced at particular moments 'in time' and not at others." > > Scott: See replies to Alex and Howard. Being kala vimutti does not mean concepts are not objects of consciousness. Citta arises and falls away. Concept does not. The apparent 'wholeness,' of things, which you call 'experience,' is construed. I didn't say anthing here about wholeness or experience in general, just the rising and falling away of cittas, which is what constitutes "time" in its reality - each moment as it is experienced by citta. I wonder, what are concepts doing when they are not perceived? If they don't arise or fall away, do they just hang in the air? It's my understanding that concepts are creations of mind, ie, mistaken perceptions or understandings of citta. Being nonexistent, I don't se how they can exist outside of their creation by and for citta. How would you define them? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118083 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:06 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...Concepts are great things to cling to by conceptual beings... They never cease, so it is something that Person (as a timless concept) can eternally possess..." Scott: Well said. Sincerely, Scott. #118084 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:12 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Scott, >A: "...Concepts are great things to cling to by conceptual beings... >They never cease, so it is something that Person (as a timless >concept) can eternally possess..." > > Scott: Well said. >================================================ Are you suggesting that there exists timeless Person (as a concept) who can eternally possess timeless things (as concepts)? How does this fits with anicca-dukkha-anatta? With best wishes, Alex #118085 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:13 am Subject: Yahoo downtime nichiconn posters, "Yahoo! Groups will be unavailable for 4 hours from Monday, October 3rd starting 8:30 p.m. PST to Tuesday,October 4th 00:30 PST, due to planned maintenance. If there is any change to this schedule, we will update the information here" 'here' being online. please don't repeat messages you send during this time simply because they don't show up right away. thanks, connie #118086 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, My understanding about concepts is this. Concept as an English word exists as nama. We all had to learn words like "car, tree, person, etc". A person is not born knowing english words, so when one learns the word than concept-as-a-name arises. Or when one remembers a word, at that time concept arises. When one forgets it, at that time concept-as-a-name ceases. Words just point to something. Ex: word "car" points to a functional conglomeration of rupa. That matter is produced and eventually will disintegrate. Even sub-atomic particles will eventually cease. So concept-as-a-name arises and ceases like nama. What is "pointed to" arises and ceases like rupa or like nama if purely abstract idea is pointed to. Concept requires mentality to create or to know it. There is no universal intelligence that knows what each concept means. Every moment of citta can be aware of concept. Without citta, how can concepts be known? This is my understanding. With best wishes, Alex #118087 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "Yes, quite right. However, in the other quoted material there is said 'And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen.'" Scott: 'Aya.m kho pana kaayo annicco sa.nkhato pa.ticcasamuppanno" is the Paa.li. 'Kaaya' may refer to the physical body and the word literally means, let's go by Nyanatiloka, 'accumulation, group, body.' I'm not sure why you reiterate this, since the meaning is that the 'body' is an accumulation, a group. The 'body' is groups of ruupa arising and falling away, not a whole. I had thought that this is what you were agreeing to, but I am aware that, given what I know of your belief in insubstantialism, we can never really agree. H: "If we can, I think it best to look at all that is said and avoid picking and choosing. (Of course, I pick & choose all the time!...)" Scott: Do you think that it is best to look at all that is said and avoid picking and choosing? I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion but I'm glad to know it, I guess. I'm also interested to know that you pick and choose all the time too, but then we weren't discussing 'picking and choosing' that I know of. Can you let me know how this might be relevant? Sincerely, Scott. #118088 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I wonder, what are concepts doing when they are not perceived? If they don't arise or fall away, do they just hang in the air?" Scott: Surreal. R: "...How would you define them?" Scott: PTS Pali-English Dictionary: "Pa~n~atti (f.) [fr. pa~n~naapeti, cp. pa~n~natta1] making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, concept." Sincerely, Scott. #118089 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:28 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Are you suggesting that there exists timeless Person (as a concept) who can eternally possess timeless things (as concepts)?" Scott: :o A: "How does this fits with anicca-dukkha-anatta?" Scott: Concepts have none of these characterstics. Sincerely, Scott. #118090 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:47 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, "...You can't eat soup with a fork, but only with the spoon..." Scott: That explains why the fork wasn't working. A 'spoon' you say? A: "..Are you saying there is no difference between taste of sugar or salt?..." Scott: Sugar and salt differ in taste? Sincerely, Scott. #118091 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Howard, H: "...It is UNconditioned, UNchanging, NotSelf, etc...." Scott: These are Nibbaana's characteristics. H: "...One question that occurs to me is what "being unconditioned" subsumes. Is it just that it is uncaused, or is it also that it is without conditions, i.e., without qualities?" Scott: I don't know. Sincerely, Scott. #118092 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:54 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, >A:"How does this fits with anicca-dukkha-anatta?" > >Scott: Concepts have none of these characterstics. >==================== Are you saying that the concepts are nicca-sukkha-atta? With best wishes, Alex #118093 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:58 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Are you saying that the concepts are nicca-sukkha-atta?" Scott: What do you mean? Sincerely, Scott. #118094 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:11 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, > A: "Are you saying that the concepts are nicca-sukkha-atta?" > > Scott: What do you mean? >======= What do you mean when you say in msg#118089 [Alex: "How does this fits with anicca-dukkha-anatta?"] Scott: Concepts have none of these characterstics. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118089 My question is about what you've meant there. With best wishes, Alex #118095 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:15 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, Me: "Concepts have none of these characterstics." A: "...My question is about what you've meant there." Scott: I don't know what else I can say, Alex. Concepts are not paramttha dhammaa. They have no characteristics. If you don't understand then I can't help you further. If you disagree, well... Sincerely, Scott. #118096 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:19 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Dear Scott, > Scott: They have no characteristics. Are concepts atta or anatta? With metta, Alex #118097 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:23 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Are concepts atta or anatta?" Scott: Neither. They have no characteristics as far as I understand. Sincerely, Scott. #118098 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:43 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, > A: "Are concepts atta or anatta?" > > Scott: Neither. They have no characteristics as far as I understand. >================= In what way are they different from atta? With best wishes, Alex #118099 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:49 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "In what way are they different from atta?" Scott: Attaa is a concept. It is a designation. It is just a conventional term for something that doesn't really exist. Attaa, therefore, is something that can be subsumed by the category 'Concept.' Sincerely, Scott. #118100 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 9/30/2011 3:13:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Scott, >A: "...Concepts are great things to cling to by conceptual beings... >They never cease, so it is something that Person (as a timless >concept) can eternally possess..." > > Scott: Well said. >================================================ Are you suggesting that there exists timeless Person (as a concept) who can eternally possess timeless things (as concepts)? How does this fits with anicca-dukkha-anatta? With best wishes, Alex ==================================== My opinion: Speaking of concepts as things is just a manner of speaking. The reality, IMO, is that there are no such thing as concepts at all. There is thinking, but no concepts. Car-thinkings occur, and tree-thinkings, and people-thinkings, and so forth. With all car-thinkings we associate the terminology "concept of a car" - but all there is, are instances of thinking-of-a-car, a particular type of thinking. There is no space in which one will find "concepts" floating around. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118101 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:56 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, > A: "In what way are they different from atta?" > > Scott: Attaa is a concept. >====== And concept is a concept. So the concept is not different from atta which is a concept as well. So concepts do have characteristics. (atta a concept). With best wishes, Alex #118102 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:01 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex (Howard), A: "And concept is a concept. So the concept is not different from atta which is a concept as well. So concepts do have characteristics. (atta a concept)." Scott: Here's where I get off the bus. You started the first sentence with 'and.' Strike one. You started the second sentence with 'so.' Strike two. You have made it clear that you absolutely are not getting this. Strike three. Howard has stepped in. I wish him the very best of luck. Sincerely, Scott. #118103 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Howard, Robert E, Scott, all, >H: My opinion: Speaking of concepts as things is just a manner of >speaking. >============================ Right. Concept-as-a-pointer is a word. But to create and know a word with its meaning requires mind, citta. Mind creates, knows and recognizes concepts. Thoughts appear and disappear. IMHO concept is thinking which is functioning of the mind, and as such is anicca-dukkha-anatta. Of course what Concept-as-a-pointer is conditioned and compounder phenomena that is anicca, dukkha, anatta. Word "car" IMHO is no different from nama. The functional collection of matter to which this word "car" points to, does exist as anicca-dukkha-anatta. I prefer such explanation rather than "concepts never arise or cease". As if concepts are something different from thinking. With best wishes, Alex #118104 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:13 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, A: "Are concepts atta or anatta?" Scott: Neither. They have no characteristics as far as I understand. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118097 Scott: Attaa is a concept... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118099 So are concepts atta or not according to your understanding? With best wishes, Alex #118105 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Howard > My opinion: Speaking of concepts as things is just a manner of > speaking. The reality, IMO, is that there are no such thing as concepts at all. > There is thinking, but no concepts. > Car-thinkings occur, and tree-thinkings, and people-thinkings, and so > forth. With all car-thinkings we associate the terminology "concept of a > car" - but all there is, are instances of thinking-of-a-car, a particular > type of thinking. There is no space in which one will find "concepts" Ph: Sounds interesting but have you ever seen this idea in the tipitika, whether suttanta or Abhidhamma? When you come up with your own theories, how do you avoid thinking about neurogy? Metta, Phil #118106 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi again, Howard > Ph: Sounds interesting but have you ever seen this idea in the tipitika, whether suttanta or Abhidhamma? When you come up with your own theories, how do you avoid thinking about neurogy? > Ph: I add: I remember a long time ago when Nina explained to an old friend (I think you remember who:) ) that green is not nama. I wonder if your idea is related to that? Are you saying "car" is nama? Metta, Phil #118107 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nichiconn hi Alex, > > Every moment of citta can be aware of concept. > concepts are only known thru the mind-door; sense-door cittas will not be aware of concepts. connie #118108 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Connie, >A: Every moment of citta can be aware of concept. > >Connie: concepts are only known thru the mind-door; sense-door >cittas will >not >be aware of concepts. > ============= Connie, I agree. But mind-door is impermanent, and without mind-door we cannot know or create concepts. IMHO there are no concepts-as-names independent of mind-door. Scott has an interesting idea regarding concepts that I find quite interesting: ================ Alex: Are concepts atta or anatta? Scott: Neither. They have no characteristics as far as I understand. Alex: In what way are they different from atta? Scott: Attaa is a concept.... Attaa, therefore, is something that can be subsumed by the category 'Concept.' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118096 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118097 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118098 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118099 With best wishes, Alex #118109 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:01 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...So are concepts atta or not according to your understanding?" Scott: Attaa is to concept as ice-cream is to food. Sincerely, Scott. #118110 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Phil, >P: Are you saying "car" is nama? If I may give my 2 cents. "Car" as an English word is nama. What it is supposed to point to is rupa. Nama and/or rupa are anicca, dukkha and anatta. I believe that more than the interesting idea that concepts have no characteristics (atta or anatta) and yet include atta as Scott has said (msg# 118097 & 118099). With best wishes, Alex #118111 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:08 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, > A: "...So are concepts atta or not according to your understanding?" > > Scott: Attaa is to concept as ice-cream is to food. >================== You have said that: Scott: Attaa is a concept... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118099 With best wishes, Alex #118112 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> > HCW: I, of course, wish in general that the Buddha were here, but I'd especially get a kick out of his response to reading what you write about what he "really means". ;-) > With warm metta, > Howard > P. S. BTW, I also believe that there are no beings, if by "a being" one means an individual reality (or entity) as opposed to a layered (mental) construct based ultimately upon a huge aggregate of complexly interrelated namas and rupas. Beings have genuine basis, but in themselves, as separate, individual things, are matters only of thought, speech, and convention. I, however, ascribe only conventional existence (as separate things) to namas and rupas as well. For me, there is but one reality, nibbana, beyond positive description and beyond intellectual apprehension. So, all worldly "things" are matters of convention, from my perspective. ----- KH: Thanks Howard, but I am well acquainted with your perspective: in the beginning there was God (Nibbana), and God created the world and all who live in it: and if we follow certain rites and rituals we will return to God: and everything will be well again. As I politely tell the evangelists who call at my house, "Thanks, but no thanks." Ken H #118113 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:23 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex I'm on the run to work now, so can't stick aroudn and join this interesting pannati party, but... > >P: Are you saying "car" is nama? > > > If I may give my 2 cents. "Car" as an English word is nama. Ph: Nama knows an object, "car" can't know an object. >What it is supposed to point to is rupa. Ph: Right >Nama and/or rupa are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Ph: THis much I understand. >I believe that more than the interesting idea that concepts have no characteristics (atta or anatta) and yet include atta as Scott has said (msg# 118097 & 118099). > Ph: There are sanna vipallasas, distortions of perception, that lead us to believe things are lasting, beautiful, happiness, self. So the atta belief is included in our distorted perception of things. Sound right ? Gotta run. Metta, Phil #118114 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Phil: Are you saying "car" is nama? > > > Alex: If I may give my 2 cents. "Car" as an English word is nama. What it is supposed to point to is rupa. Nama and/or rupa are anicca, dukkha and anatta. I believe that more than the interesting idea that concepts have no characteristics (atta or anatta) and yet include atta as Scott has said (msg# 118097 & 118099). pt: Imo, the issue of concepts not having anything to do with the characteristics (atta, anatta, anicca, nama, rupa, etc) has to do with the practical understanding that insight, and thus, liberation, occurs only when anatta and other characteristics of a dhamma/khanda are directly understood. E.g. when there's direct realisation that craving (dhamma) is anicca, anatta, and thus, one is free from craving at the time, or permanently with eradication. But, liberation doesn't happen if one is aware of the fact that cars and forks are anicca, anatta, etc. In other words, if there's an understanding that a car is anicca, it does not lead to liberating insight like when craving, a painful feeling, or any other dhamma, is understood as anicca. To make it more tricky, the same in fact applies to understanding that the body is anicca, anatta, etc - this does not equal in terms of liberating insight to understanding that hardness is anicca, heat is anicca, anatta, (so rupa is anicca, anata, dukkha), etc. Thus, imo, understanding that a car, fork, body, etc, and other concepts are anatta, anicca, dukkha, in fact, does not liberate. I.e. it is not the same level of understanding as when a feeling, a perception, and other dhammas are understood to be anatta, anicca, etc. That's why I think it is said that taking concepts as anatta, anicca, etc, is only an intellectual understanding, so not an insight that actually liberates from dukkha. Further, I also think that's why it's eventually just concluded that concepts don't have characteristics, and are neither atta nor anatta, are neither nama nor rupa nor nibbana, etc. In other words, insight into the three characteristics that actually liberates applies to dhammas, because that's how the characteristics can be directly known resulting in liberation, whereas with concepts - it simply doesn't apply in terms of liberating insight. Best wishes pt #118115 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:38 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Phil, Howard, all, >A: If I may give my 2 cents. "Car" as an English word is nama. > > Ph: Nama knows an object, "car" can't know an object. >====== Can Nama know what English word "car", as a word, means? "Car" as an English word is a thought "car". And though it mental (nama). My understanding is that concept-as-a-word is a thought, and thought is mental which is anicca-dukkha-anatta. With best wishes, Alex #118116 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "You have said that: Scott: Attaa is a concept..." Alex: Yes, Alex. I have said this. Sincerely, Scott. #118117 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Pt, Phil, all, Thank you for your post. Why can't one correctly understand that car is inconstant, what is inconstant is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta? Car will break up and will be discarded. So the more one had craving toward it, the more one would suffer the loss. If one didn't have craving toward it, then one wouldn't experience dukkha when it inevitably falls apart. My understanding of Dhamma is that one needs to really understand 4NT and that there is nothing worth craving to. Avijja and Tanha needs to be gotten rid off, because there isn't anything that can be permanently possessed. Health turns into sickness. Youth into old age. Life ends with death. Possessions will eventually slip through one's finger. Wealthy today, pauper "tomorrow" after another stock market meltdown, etc etc. The more one expects life to deliver what it cannot, the more one will suffer due to frustrated expectations and suffering along the way of obtaining sensual pleasures. IMHO our deluded pursuit of pleasure (due to delusion that happiness in the world is found) is more fundamental than metaphysical delusions of things ultimate existence or non-existence. One doesn't need metaphysics to crave. One just needs to have delusion regarding dukkha of the world. Dukkha is natural condition of the world. There is no permanent pleasure in the world. Whatever pleasure one receives is just a peak between two moments (troughs) of pain. I believe that it is more important to focus on 4NT rather than on external objects. The problem is in the delusion, not in the things inside. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #118118 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:51 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, > A: "You have said that: > > Scott: Attaa is a concept..." > > Alex: Yes, Alex. I have said this. >======================================== Since atta is a concept, it means that concept can have characteristic of atta according to your understanding? With best wishes, Alex #118119 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 9/30/2011 4:16:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "Yes, quite right. However, in the other quoted material there is said 'And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen.'" Scott: 'Aya.m kho pana kaayo annicco sa.nkhato pa.ticcasamuppanno" is the Paa.li. 'Kaaya' may refer to the physical body and the word literally means, let's go by Nyanatiloka, 'accumulation, group, body.' I'm not sure why you reiterate this, since the meaning is that the 'body' is an accumulation, a group. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, of course it is a group. ----------------------------------------- The 'body' is groups of ruupa arising and falling away, not a whole. ------------------------------------------ HCW: I'm not sure what a "whole" is supposed to be. In any case, a body is, for sure, a group and not an individual. --------------------------------------- I had thought that this is what you were agreeing to, but I am aware that, given what I know of your belief in insubstantialism, we can never really agree. ------------------------------------------ HCW: I don't follow you. In any case, I agree that a body is a group. Speaking and thinking of it as an individual or unit is at best a convention and at worst a serious error. ---------------------------------------- H: "If we can, I think it best to look at all that is said and avoid picking and choosing. (Of course, I pick & choose all the time!...)" Scott: Do you think that it is best to look at all that is said and avoid picking and choosing? I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion but I'm glad to know it, I guess. ------------------------------------------- HCW: My point was that the Buddha, in the quoted material not mentioned by you, asserted that the body is impermanent. He said that outright. Of course, I rush to point out that a group is impermanent due to the impermanence of its components, old ones ceasing and new ones arising. That basis of a body's impermanence in the impermanence of its components is what makes the impermanence of a body derivative. ---------------------------------------- I'm also interested to know that you pick and choose all the time too, but then we weren't discussing 'picking and choosing' that I know of. Can you let me know how this might be relevant? ------------------------------------------------ You mentioned one of the two quoted items I presented but not the other. I viewed that is an instance of picking & choosing. Perhaps that is not what was going on. -------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118120 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/30/2011 6:14:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard > My opinion: Speaking of concepts as things is just a manner of > speaking. The reality, IMO, is that there are no such thing as concepts at all. > There is thinking, but no concepts. > Car-thinkings occur, and tree-thinkings, and people-thinkings, and so > forth. With all car-thinkings we associate the terminology "concept of a > car" - but all there is, are instances of thinking-of-a-car, a particular > type of thinking. There is no space in which one will find "concepts" Ph: Sounds interesting but have you ever seen this idea in the tipitika, whether suttanta or Abhidhamma? ---------------------------------------- HCW: No. But I HAVE seen "the all" described in the suttas as naas and rupas. -------------------------------------- When you come up with your own theories, how do you avoid thinking about neurogy? ------------------------------------ HCW: You mean neurology, I presume. No, I don't think about it. ----------------------------------- Metta, Phil =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118121 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/30/2011 6:32:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again, Howard > Ph: Sounds interesting but have you ever seen this idea in the tipitika, whether suttanta or Abhidhamma? When you come up with your own theories, how do you avoid thinking about neurogy? > Ph: I add: I remember a long time ago when Nina explained to an old friend (I think you remember who:) ) that green is not nama. I wonder if your idea is related to that? Are you saying "car" is nama? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing at all. ---------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118122 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/30/2011 7:10:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: KH: Thanks Howard, but I am well acquainted with your perspective: in the beginning there was God (Nibbana), and God created the world and all who live in it: and if we follow certain rites and rituals we will return to God: and everything will be well again. As I politely tell the evangelists who call at my house, "Thanks, but no thanks." ================================ Cute stuff, Ken. But keep it for someone else, please. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118123 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/30/2011 7:48:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Health turns into sickness. Youth into old age. =========================== Not really, Alex. Health doesn't turn into sickness. Health ceases when sickness arises. Likewise for youth and old age, those these are even fuzzier notions than health and sickness. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118124 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 9/30/2011 7:48:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Health turns into sickness. Youth into old age. > =========================== > Not really, Alex. Health doesn't turn into sickness. Health ceases > when sickness arises. Likewise for youth and old age, those these are even > fuzzier notions than health and sickness. > > With metta, > Howard Ok, we can replace "turns" with "ceases and is replaced". The meaning of what I've said doesn't alter. Or we can say: "Health is replaced with sickness" etc. As for "youth is replaced with old age", One isn't going to be 18 years old forever. After some time one will be old (if one doesn't die before). With best wishes, Alex #118125 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:34 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Howard, >HCW: I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing >at all. > ---------------------------------------------- What word "car" points to is a certain functional collection of rupas. Of course car as indivisible, constant, unchanging, singular noumenon-in-itself doesn't exist. But that collection of rupas as anicca-dukkha-anatta does. With best wishes, Alex #118126 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? ptaus1 Hi Alex, > A: Why can't one correctly understand that car is inconstant, what is inconstant is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta? Car will break up and will be discarded. So the more one had craving toward it, the more one would suffer the loss. If one didn't have craving toward it, then one wouldn't experience dukkha when it inevitably falls apart. pt: my understanding is that one can understand that a car is anicca, anatta, dukkha, but, this understanding will not be of the same level as insight - understanding that thinking (about a car or any other object) when it's arising - is anicca etc, that perceiving (a car) when its arising is anicca etc, that craving (a car ) when its arising is anicca, etc. So simply different levels of understanding, one of which leads to liberation (dhammas) and the other (concepts) doesn't. I'd think that understanding a car (or some other concept) as anicca etc, has some value in it, but it just isn't as effective in terms of liberation as understanding dhammas as anicca etc. > A: My understanding of Dhamma is that one needs to really understand 4NT and that there is nothing worth craving to. Avijja and Tanha needs to be gotten rid off, because there isn't anything that can be permanently possessed. > > Health turns into sickness. Youth into old age. Life ends with death. > Possessions will eventually slip through one's finger. Wealthy today, pauper "tomorrow" after another stock market meltdown, etc etc. > The more one expects life to deliver what it cannot, the more one will suffer due to frustrated expectations and suffering along the way of obtaining sensual pleasures. > > IMHO our deluded pursuit of pleasure (due to delusion that happiness in the world is found) is more fundamental than metaphysical delusions of things ultimate existence or non-existence. > > One doesn't need metaphysics to crave. One just needs to have delusion regarding dukkha of the world. > > Dukkha is natural condition of the world. There is no permanent pleasure in the world. Whatever pleasure one receives is just a peak between two moments (troughs) of pain. pt: Yes, all that is fine, but, (please don't take this as criticism) everything you say above, if I gauge it correctly, is essentially understanding on the intellectual level, so concepts about life, the teaching and dukkha. As said, there's some value in it, but imo insight begins when an understanding happens that actually sees a pleasant feeling as dukkha when its arising, that sees perception as dukkha, that sees thinking as dukkha, etc, when its arising, rather than just thinking about how all these things are dukkha in general. > A: I believe that it is more important to focus on 4NT rather than on external objects. The problem is in the delusion, not in the things inside. pt: I don't quite understand what you mean here, perhaps you can clarify. Best wishes pt #118127 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:07 am Subject: understanding of 4NT truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >pt: my understanding is that one can understand that a car is >anicca, anatta, dukkha, but, this understanding will not be of the >same level as insight - >================================================= Correct. Ultimately one has to realize that ALL craving, not just for a particular phenomena, is cause for dukkha. Craving as craving is the problem, not simply being limited to craving for this or that. Understanding has to be global, rather than toward particular things (car, cloths, possessions, etc). Intellectual understanding is good to start with, but it needs to be realized deeply and to such a degree that craving (and all its results) will not arise again. 4NT needs to cover every and anything not simply be applied only toward particular things such as cars, clothes, money, other possessions, etc. With best wishes, Alex #118128 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:10 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A:"Since atta is a concept, it means that concept can have characteristic of atta according to your understanding?" Scott: No. Scott. #118129 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "Yes, of course it is a group." Scott: I thought that that was what you were agreeing about in the first place but one never knows... HCW: "I'm not sure what a 'whole' is supposed to be. In any case, a body is, for sure, a group and not an individual." Scott: Yeah, it's not 'my body' or 'your body' or 'your wife's body.' HCW: "My point was that the Buddha, in the quoted material not mentioned by you, asserted that the body is impermanent. He said that outright. Of course, I rush to point out that a group is impermanent due to the impermanence of its components, old ones ceasing and new ones arising. That basis of a body's impermanence in the impermanence of its components is what makes the impermanence of a body derivative. Scott: Oh, I see. You mean you were referring to my not having mentioned something about one of the suttas you had quoted in the post in question. You must have thought that I hadn't read it or was ignoring it or something, or else you wouldn't have made a point of mentioning it. The impermanence of 'a body' is conceptual. Scott. #118130 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:23 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, >A:"Since atta is a concept, it means that concept can have >characteristic of atta according to your understanding?" > > Scott: No. >=============== But you've said that: "Attaa is a concept." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118099 So according to your understanding have characteristic of atta, with which I disagree. All things are anicca-dukkha-anatta including concepts (which are mere thoughts). With best wishes, Alex #118131 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:29 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "But you've said that: 'Attaa is a concept.' So according to your understanding have characteristic of atta, with which I disagree. All things are anicca-dukkha-anatta including concepts (which are mere thoughts)." Scott: Read closely, Alex. I am no longer responding to you on this. I don't know which concepts to use to explain to myself your magnificently awesome obtuseness, but I am now stepping totally and completely and finally out of this amazing thread. I challenge anyone to try to continue. I have never seen the like. Do not continue with me. I'm done. I'm finished. I will not be responding. That means you, Alex. Don't write me again. No, really. I'm stopping now. Like, stopping my interaction with you on this matter. Do not reply to me. Ever. Forever. Just kidding. But I'm done with this now. Bye. Scott. #118132 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:39 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Scott, >A: "But you've said that: 'Attaa is a concept.' So according to >your >understanding have characteristic of atta, with which I >disagree. All >things are anicca-dukkha-anatta including concepts >(which are mere >thoughts)." > > Scott: Read closely, Alex. >=============== I've read it closely where you've said that 'Attaa is a concept.' When you say that "x is y", I take it to mean that you've really meant "x is y". It is just like when the Buddha has told us to strive, I really believe that He meant what he said. We can finish this discussion. I don't believe in eternal and timeless Atta that never rises or falls. With best wishes, Alex #118133 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/30/2011 8:30:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Ok, we can replace "turns" with "ceases and is replaced". The meaning of what I've said doesn't alter. Or we can say: "Health is replaced with sickness" etc. As for "youth is replaced with old age", One isn't going to be 18 years old forever. After some time one will be old (if one doesn't die before). ================================= Okay, fine. :-) There are some folks who seriously talk of entity A literally transforming into not A and at the same time confer reality status to A, which is really weird. "Distinct realities" and "turning into" are incompatible. One way or the other, but not both. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118134 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/30/2011 8:34:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, >HCW: I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing >at all. > ---------------------------------------------- What word "car" points to is a certain functional collection of rupas. --------------------------------------------- HCW: A process of thinking associates the word 'car' with a thought-of collection of rupas. ------------------------------------------------ Of course car as indivisible, constant, unchanging, singular noumenon-in-itself doesn't exist. But that collection of rupas as anicca-dukkha-anatta does. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Actually, it is even more complicated than that. The thought-of-car has its basis in a multiplicity of sights, smells, and bodily sensations across time. ----------------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118135 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 12:56 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nichiconn You're right, Alex, > > there isn't anything that can be permanently possessed. > indeed, any rupa can only "be mine" while it's being experienced & at the same time, would also belong to you or anyone else 'sharing the moment'. Aside from that, possessions are only in our minds, concepts, thunk of things. > Health turns into sickness. Youth into old age. so we say, speaking casually/conventionally, but does anything ever really turn into something else? > Possessions will eventually slip through one's finger. Wealthy today, pauper "tomorrow" after another stock market meltdown, etc etc. > eventually is more or less Now... see above. > The more one expects life to deliver what it cannot, the more one will suffer due to frustrated expectations and suffering along the way of obtaining sensual pleasures. > what are the different kinds of suffering again? > IMHO our deluded pursuit of pleasure (due to delusion that happiness in the world is found) is more fundamental than metaphysical delusions of things ultimate existence or non-existence. > > One doesn't need metaphysics to crave. One just needs to have delusion regarding dukkha of the world. > I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical delusions of things ultimate existence or non-existence". One might appreciate metaphysics (if you mean abhidhamma) as a basis of bonehead beginning theoretical understanding. > Dukkha is natural condition of the world. There is no permanent pleasure in the world. Whatever pleasure one receives is just a peak between two moments (troughs) of pain. > > ok. might even say what we call pleasure is dukkha. > > I believe that it is more important to focus on 4NT rather than on external objects. The problem is in the delusion, not in the things inside. > > The delusion IS "inside"... or at least, doesn't come from external objects, but is part of "us". > > IMHO. > on second thought, no one need my "humble opinion" tirade! delete, delete. > > With best wishes, > with small hope, connie #118136 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I wonder, what are concepts doing when they are not perceived? If they don't arise or fall away, do they just hang in the air?" > > Scott: Surreal. > > R: "...How would you define them?" > > Scott: PTS Pali-English Dictionary: > > "Pa~n~atti (f.) [fr. pa~n~naapeti, cp. pa~n~natta1] making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, concept." Sorry, Scott, but that's not very illuminating. It's like saying concept = concept, and was not my question, or your original statement, which is that concepts are "outside of time." [equally surreal.] How concepts occur, and how they can occur to citta without having any characteristic, rising or falling, or any real existence, is a valid question. Rupas arise whether anyone perceives them or not. How do concepts come into being. Are they a product of citta, or do they occur to citta, and how do they arise? If they do not arise at all, how are they entertained by citta? Maybe this is above your pay grade. If so, apologies for such high expectations. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118137 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:33 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Alex, > > Me: "Concepts have none of these characterstics." > > A: "...My question is about what you've meant there." > > Scott: I don't know what else I can say, Alex. Concepts are not paramttha dhammaa. They have no characteristics. If you don't understand then I can't help you further. If you disagree, well... It doesn't appear that you understand it either, Scott, since you can't explain it. What's the basis for your understanding, that you can repeat the sentence? A parrot can do that. That's my problem with a lot of these ideas - they are repeated not with pariyatti or even basic intellectual understanding, but just taken as sentences, and you are content with that. This idea that all the things we are used to regarding as real in the world are concepts, which means they are not actually there, but are like images or hallucinations - fine. But then it is said they don't arise or fall, and don't have a characteristic, because only dhammas have characteristics. So when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place? How does a citta make contact with something that isn't there, and if it doesn't make contact, how does the citta think about it? Now when I am seeing a person - a concept - it's not static, I exchange speech, we smile, we talk, we move around, we see the body and perceive the other person in a lot of "conceptual moments." So are these real moments, or not? What's happening as each of these detailed events take place. Nothing? Or are these moments of perceiving the concept as if it were real just cleverly disguised rupas and namas. And if so, how is that possible? How does the concept get perceived? Do you have any idea yourself how this takes place? Connect the dots for me, thanks. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #118138 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Rupas arise whether anyone perceives them or not. How do concepts come into being. Are they a product of citta, or do they occur to citta, and how do they arise? If they do not arise at all, how are they entertained by citta?" Scott: Settle down, Rob. Concepts are the content of thinking. Sincerely, Scott. #118139 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 1:38 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." Scott: Good question. What do you think? Scott. #118140 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nichiconn > HI connie > > you wrote: > > > connie: Hm... just thinking that the little pool of blood is a conventional expression reflecting jivitindriya WHAT? No, connie, hadayrupa is not the same as jivitindriya. Go read a book. connie #118141 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:09 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Rupas arise whether anyone perceives them or not. How do concepts come into being. Are they a product of citta, or do they occur to citta, and how do they arise? If they do not arise at all, how are they entertained by citta?" > > Scott: Settle down, Rob. Concepts are the content of thinking. Still, if they are content of thinking, aren't they objects of thought then, mental objects? Or in what way are they content? Settling down not possible - it's all conditions, I have no control. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #118142 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:11 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." > > Scott: Good question. What do you think? Sure, I'll play handoff if you like - I think that the concept is an object of thinking. What do you think? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #118143 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:14 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Still, if they are content of thinking, aren't they objects of thought then, mental objects? Or in what way are they content?" Scott: Yes. They are objects in the mind door. R: "Settling down not possible - it's all conditions, I have no control." Scott: No, really. Just settle down. Just discuss Dhamma, Rob. I don't care whether you still feel that you've lost face or not. I don't care that you have to persist in trying to get one over on me. You win. You're the man. I'm on the bottom. Okay? Just stick to the discussion or spend more time on the cushion and resolve it that way. Honestly, man... Scott. #118144 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 2:17 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Sure, I'll play handoff if you like - I think that the concept is an object of thinking. What do you think?" Scott: If you are not serious in wanting to discuss, just don't reply, Rob. I do think it is a good question. I do wonder what you think about it. If you don't wish to offer your thoughts on it, I don't care in the least, and I mean that 'I don't care' in the nicest way you could possibly imagine. Scott. #118145 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Still, if they are content of thinking, aren't they objects of thought then, mental objects? Or in what way are they content?" > > Scott: Yes. They are objects in the mind door. > > R: "Settling down not possible - it's all conditions, I have no control." > > Scott: No, really. Just settle down. Just discuss Dhamma, Rob. I don't care whether you still feel that you've lost face or not. I don't care that you have to persist in trying to get one over on me. You win. You're the man. I'm on the bottom. Okay? Just stick to the discussion or spend more time on the cushion and resolve it that way. Honestly, man... That comment was a joke in response to your comment to "settle down," which was you not sticking to Dhamma. Everything else I said was on-topic. Try it, and leave out your own personal comments if you don't want to traffick in them. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #118146 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 3:06 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Sure, I'll play handoff if you like - I think that the concept is an object of thinking. What do you think?" > > Scott: If you are not serious in wanting to discuss, just don't reply, Rob. I do think it is a good question. I do wonder what you think about it. If you don't wish to offer your thoughts on it, I don't care in the least, and I mean that 'I don't care' in the nicest way you could possibly imagine. Once again, you are the one making persona evaluations and not sticking to the conversation. My answer was serious, if brief. I raised questions about the status of concepts, and continue to wait for your answers. You asked me what I thought instead of answering, so I gave you my basic idea of what they are, and am still waiting for you to explain your view. Go for it. If you are serious about the discussion then stick to it, and say what you think. I am already doing the same, so don't imagine what I am up to based on your own errant thoughts, just take what I say at face value, and stop making personal comments and evaluations if you don't want to converse on that level. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118147 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 3:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nichiconn hi Phil, Howard, > Are you saying "car" is nama? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing at all. > ---------------------------------------------- c: "car" is naama as in 'name'... the word we use to indicate the collective of characteristics and signs of ultimate realities we take for 'a ride' - or have i missed the bus? connie #118148 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Howard > HCW: > No. But I HAVE seen "the all" described in the suttas as naas and > rupas. Ph: Isn't there always a citta and object of citta context? > When you come up with your own theories, how do you avoid thinking about > neurogy? > ------------------------------------ > HCW: > You mean neurology, I presume. No, I don't think about it. Ph: OK, it seems to me it would be difficult to avoid for you since you clearly have an enquiring mind, and value developing your own tgeories/interpretations. Maybe there is no diff between Dhamma and neurology anyways... Metta, Phil > ----------------------------------- > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > > > #118149 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Phil, Hope this is the right one that you asked for extra comments on: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Ph: Akusala kamma patha is strong enough to condition rebirth in a woeful realm, if I understand correctly, if there are several factors to make it a "full course" kamma, or something like that. > >R: Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) that while mental factors/intention is the root of all kamma, as it becomes realized in speech and action it becomes heavier/more complete. So the idle thought of murder is kamma 1, the plan to murder [speech] is kamma 2, and the carrying out of murder is complete kamma patha or kamma 3, the heaviest kamma. .... S: As Phil said, sounds like "in the right direction"! 1) and 2) are kamma, but only 3) is completed kamma patha, liable to bring results by way of unhappy rebirth and subsequent akusala vipaka. ... > > Aren't you glad I didn't write the Abhidhamma? :-))) .... S: Very glad to see your keen interest:-)) ... > > >P: As for intensity, I find prompted vs unprompted cittas interesting. If you're persuaded to do a bad deed the ciita (and I assume the kamma) is weaker than if the deed arises spontaneously.., > >R: That's very interesting. I'd like to apply this to my favorite example, that a/ it's okay for monks to eat meat if someone else kills the animal, but b/ it's not okay to eat the meat if it is 'specially prepared for the monk to eat,' in other words if the animal was killed on behalf of that monk's meal, and c/ what would happen if the monk, or someone on behalf of the monk persuaded the person to prepare that meal/kill that animal. Who gets the kamma? .... S: For the person who killed the animal, it is akusala kamma patha. Now, they may have been persuaded or even ordered to do so, in which case the "prompted" akusala cittas and akusala kamma patha would not be as strong as in the case when someone, for example, killed the animal in a fit of rage. If someone persuaded/ordered the other person to kill the animal then it would certainly be akusala kamma patha in the case of the ordering. There are many examples in the text of this, when the act is completed. In the case of persuading or encouraging, but not ordering, then akusala kamma, but probably not full akusala kamma patha, because it's not killing by that person. As for the monk, if he persuaded someone to prepare/kill the animal specially, it would be very weighty kamma indeed. Deliberately breaking the vinaya can result in rebirth in hell realms. This is why one should never support any breach of vinaya by monks, such as giving money to a monk, engaging in non-dhamma discussion and so on. .... > >P: Moment of sincere friendliness confirmed and accumulated! CLICK. .... S: Glad to note it! (There was a bit of that 'schoolyard bully' creeping in a little while ago, I think) ... > > Metta received and reciprocated! Rob E. out! .... Sarah out too... Have a good weekend everyone. Metta Sarah ==== #118150 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 6:17 pm Subject: Re: understanding of 4NT ptaus1 Hi Alex, Looks like my reply got lost, so i'll try again. > >pt: my understanding is that one can understand that a car is >anicca, anatta, dukkha, but, this understanding will not be of the >same level as insight - > >================================================= > > Alex: Correct. Ultimately one has to realize that ALL craving, not just for a particular phenomena, is cause for dukkha. Craving as craving is the problem, not simply being limited to craving for this or that. > Understanding has to be global, rather than toward particular things (car, cloths, possessions, etc). > > Intellectual understanding is good to start with, but it needs to be realized deeply and to such a degree that craving (and all its results) will not arise again. > > 4NT needs to cover every and anything not simply be applied only toward particular things such as cars, clothes, money, other possessions, etc. pt: In general I agree. in practical terms, I'd just make a slightly different emphasis - i.e. rather than saying that the path is about realising all craving and the 4NT covering everything, which is right when speaking in general terms - I'd rather say that in practical terms it all comes down to understanding the presently arising craving (for whatever object) as anicca, anatta, etc. The same applies to all other khandas since insight too is conditioned, so sometimes the presently arising craving will become object of citta with panna, sometimes it will be the presently arising perception, sometimes feeling, etc. But I wonder if we also agree that if the object of present citta is a concept, then panna will not be able to understand the three characteristics at the time (and thus no insight will occur), though it might with a later citta that takes perception as object for example? Best wishes pt #118151 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Howard and all, p.s to Connie. First of all, I thought I sent a post similar to this, but it hasn't shown up. Sorry if it does later. >I wonder if your idea is > related to that? Are you saying "car" is nama? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing at all. Ph: Considering how important concepts are in our lives, how tightly we cling to them (especially people!) it seems that they should be object of thinking, anyways. In SN 35, we have mind and mind object, surely object of thinking. Or are you saying yes, they are object of thinking but...well, I find sticking with a simple citta, object of citta model much simpler, and I feel it is clear in the texts. But I know you don't like cittas as little agents of cognition. I love the little buggers, keeps things simpler, makes for less adventurous thinking... I am just putting my feet gingerly in water that you and others have been splashing around in for years, so I probably won't get right in. Metta, Phil p.s thanks, Connie, for the note re multiple meanings of nama. #118152 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:16 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for your explanation (again!) re kamma. I have to hear some things up to a dozen times before they sink in... > > >P: Moment of sincere friendliness confirmed and accumulated! CLICK. > .... > S: Glad to note it! (There was a bit of that 'schoolyard bully' creeping in a little while ago, I think) You know and I know he'll be back, he has been accumulated. When we do something ten times, we do it eleven. But I am confident his appearances will be shorter and less frequent. But he'll be back. Conditions! Metta, Phil #118153 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 7:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex > > Thank you for your post. Why can't one correctly understand that car is inconstant, what is inconstant is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta? Car will break up and will be discarded. So the more one had craving toward it, the more one would suffer the loss. If one didn't have craving toward it, then one wouldn't experience dukkha when it inevitably falls apart. I don't know about cars, don't care about cars, hate cars, one of them killed my dog right in front of my eyes. Screw cars. Enough about them. And chariots. And trees. And chariots riding around with trees in the driving seat, crashing into cars. As for people, I do agree that the conventional reflection of ageing, illness and death has a place in conditioning samvega. But understanding dhammas is much more valuable. That is what separates the BUddha from other philosophers. Even the dumbest redneck can reflect on the impermanence of his car. Damn! The cars are back!!!! Metta, Phil #118154 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi again, Alex and all > > I don't know about cars, don't care about cars, hate cars, one of them killed my dog right in front of my eyes. Screw cars. Enough about them. And chariots. And trees. And chariots riding around with trees in the driving seat, crashing into cars. Sorry, this was too silly even by my standards. My point was that reflecting on impermanence of cars or trees or other concepts ( except people) is not praised by the Buddha, at least not in anywhere near the way reflecting on impermanence etc of dhammas is praised. Time for a bit of a break. :) Metta, Phil #118155 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/30/2011 11:38:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Rob E., R: "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." Scott: Good question. What do you think? Scott. ================================= If I may butt in, my answer to "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." is "Thinking is taking place." When recalling the smell of Channel #5 perfume, a very specific sort of thinking is occurring. When planning a party, another very specific sort of thinking is taking place. When imagining a flying, purple elephant, yet another specific sort of thought process is underway. Nowhere at all as part of these processes are there things called "concepts" occurring, i.e., arising, changing, and ceasing. All that is happening is thinking. Thinking is describable, of course, with regard to a variety of features, the main one being the so-called "content," i.e., what is being "thought about". In that regard, though, when there is "thinking about something," no "something" and no "concept" of such a "something" are present. Only a specific sort of thought process is underway. The statement that concepts neither arise nor cease is, IMO, a misleading one. The facts are: 1) Thinking arises and develops and ceases, 2) Concept terminology is used in describing the subject-matter of thinking, and 3) There are no actual things called "concepts" present at all - only thinking is underway. (Hey, what a concept!!! LOL!!) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118156 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 9:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/1/2011 1:14:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: hi Phil, Howard, > Are you saying "car" is nama? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'm saying that thinking-of-a-car is nama, and "car" is nothing at all. > ---------------------------------------------- c: "car" is naama as in 'name'... the word we use to indicate the collective of characteristics and signs of ultimate realities we take for 'a ride' - or have i missed the bus? connie ================================= The name 'car' is itself nothing more than the content of a thought process. It is not a single "reality", nor is it even a single scribble on a piece of paper nor a single string of bits on a monitor screen. It is entirely ungraspable and is certainly not a paramattha dhamma. It is a naama only in the literal sense of "name," for we call it "a name". Oh, one more thing: When I wrote "car" instead of 'car' in , I was referring to the concept-of-car, not to the name. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118157 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 8:53 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? dhammasaro Thank you Howard... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Hi, Scott (and Robert) - In a message dated 9/30/2011 11:38:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Rob E., R: "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." Scott: Good question. What do you think? Scott. ================================= If I may butt in, my answer to "...when a concept is entertained by a citta, what is actually taking place?..." is "Thinking is taking place." When recalling the smell of Channel #5 perfume, a very specific sort of thinking is occurring. When planning a party, another very specific sort of thinking is taking place. When imagining a flying, purple elephant, yet another specific sort of thought process is underway. Nowhere at all as part of these processes are there things called "concepts" occurring, i.e., arising, changing, and ceasing. All that is happening is thinking. <...> #118158 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nilovg Dear Alex and Scott, Op 30-sep-2011, om 23:43 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > A: "Are concepts atta or anatta?" > > > > Scott: Neither. They have no characteristics as far as I understand. > >================= N: True, no characteristics. I once heard Kh Sujin say that even concepts are anatta in as far as they are non-self. Nina. #118159 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "True, no characteristics. I once heard Kh Sujin say that even concepts are anatta in as far as they are non-self." Scott: Sabbe dhamma anatta. Yes. Alex seems to think concepts are 'atta.' I think 'atta' is a concept in the same way that 'computer' is a concept. I was disagreeing with with him categorically. Sincerely, Scott. #118160 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 28-sep-2011, om 5:25 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > 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? > -------- N: We do not think of the whole body, just attend to what appears, one dhamma at a time. ----- > > R: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. > ------- N: For some people it may appear, and nobody is doing anything, it just appears to sati. For most I think it may not appear, it is so subtle. Or people may try to think of it, but then it is not sati that happens to be aware of what appears naturally, without anybody doing anything about it. Great sati and pa~n~naa are indispensable here. Say, I would try now: as soon as I think of breath it is not awareness of breath. it is also possible to confuse breath with air. It has to be a ruupa produced by citta. ------- > > > R: 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. > ------ N: Not only those cetasikas, but all accompaying cetasikas assist, and pa~n~naa takes the lead. Right sa~n~naa as proximate cause of sati: what one has learned about it and about the right way of development is not forgotten. Vitakka hits the object so that pa~n~naa can understand it, but we cannot pinpoint the operation of vitakka. ------ > > R: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? > -------- N: They arise together and operate together. ------ > > > > > 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: Also in samatha pa~n~naa is indispensable, but in samatha it does not know the three characteristics. Jhaanacitta is accompanied by pa~n~naa of the level of samatha. -------- > > > ------- > > 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. > > R: 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. > ----- N: No, also the jhaanacitta and jhaanafactors should be known as they are, as anattaa. As to the object of jhaanacitta, breath, through insight this is known as a kind of conditioned ruupa which is non-self, impermanent, dukkha. ------- > > > R: > 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? > ------- N: When we take breath: this is ruupa, it is neither akusala nor kusala. The jhaanacitta, when it is true jhaana has to be kusala, and in the case of arahats kiriyacitta. When the object of jhaana is a concept it is neither kusala nor akusala. ----- > > > > -------- > > > R: > 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? > -------- N: There is no posture in the ultimate sense. Posture is an idea of a whole. Corpse: when one looks at it, it is a whole, one thinks of corpse, and then there will be a mental image of it. ------ > > > > -------- > 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? > ----- N: It accompanies sati, and it assists the citta with sati. It focuses on the object. ------ > > > 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. > > R: 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? > > -------- > N: A nimitta of the reality that has just fallen away. I have to put off answering your last post until after next week. Nina. > #118161 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 1, 2011 11:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Howard, H: "...1) Thinking arises and develops and ceases, 2) Concept terminology is used in describing the subject-matter of thinking, and 3) There are no actual things called 'concepts' present at all - only thinking is underway..." Scott: Thinking is the reality - citta arises and falls away, the content of thought is the concept - mind-door objects for citta. Mental factors like sa~n~na and cittass'ekagattaa and the like arise as well over and over. Concepts are infinitely elaboratable because they are not realities. Sincerely, Scott. #118162 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:03 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Once again, you are the one making persona evaluations and not sticking to the conversation..." Scott: No, I was making a joke that time. This speech is so hard to keep track of. What was the conversation? Sincerely, Scott. #118163 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:10 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...That comment was a joke in response to your comment to 'settle down,' which was you not sticking to Dhamma..." Scott: Oh, that was a joke. That's funny because you missed my joke in the other post and thought it was serious. Also, it's funny too because 'settle down' was a joke and you then took it seriously. It's like all these jokes passing in the night. I did think it was a good question, though. I like how you're like 'no, you answer it first' and that, as if the fate of the world depended on who answers first. Oh well, we are men after all... Sincerely, Scott. #118164 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Howard, A good sutta passage to discuss, thx. (butting in, pls ignore if someone else has made the same point....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > In SN 36.7 there is the following: > > arisen in me. It is conditioned, not unconditioned. Conditioned by what? > Even by this body it is conditioned. And this body, indeed, is impermanent, > compounded, dependently arisen. But if this painful feeling that has arisen > is conditioned by the body which is impermanent, compounded and dependently > arisen, how could such a painful feeling be permanent?'> > > Note the sentence "And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, > dependently arisen." ..... S: Here, as I understand the sutta and other similar ones, kaaya (body) is referring to the various sense-bases - eye-sense, ear-sense, nose-sense, smell-sense and body-sense. In the case of painful or pleasant bodily feeling, it is referring to body-sense. In the case of neutral feeling being conditioned by sense-base, it must be one of the other four. As we know, in order for body consciousness and pleasant/painful feeling, contact and so on to arise, there must be a tangible object and body-sense. If you look at Nyanaponika's translation, he has a brief foot-note making the same point. Similarly, in the Satipatthana Sutta, kaaya, refers to the rupas commonly taken for being the body. It is awareness of rupas, not of the concept of body that is being encouraged. Metta Sarah ====== #118165 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:16 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Scott & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > R: "...That comment was a joke in response to your comment to 'settle down,' which was you not sticking to Dhamma..." > > Scott: Oh, that was a joke. That's funny because you missed my joke in the other post and thought it was serious. <.......>Oh well, we are men after all... .... Sarah: :-)) Glad to see you guys are all bonding so well now ;-) Metta Sarah ===== #118166 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Sarah, Sarah: ":-)) Glad to see you guys are all bonding so well now ;-)" Scott: Ha ha. I think. The smiley guy means you are glad. Really glad since he has two mouths. Or a superfluous chin. I can't tell. I wonder what that subtle ambiguity is meant to communicate. Maybe it is a signifier meant to alert the reader to the possibility that the next phrase might not be what it seems. Are we 'bonding' for real and is that why you are glad? Or are we jousting for real and you are not actually glad. And then we have the winky guy. The trickster figure. A conspiratorial wink. Do you then communicate that you really know what is going on? I'm joking. No really. Actually (and now I'm serious - no really), I like all this since it is a very good way to continue to consider the whole, complex thing about what constitutes harsh versus gentle speech. Sincerely, Scott. #118167 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:39 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Scott, Rob E, Alex & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Sarah, > > Sarah: ":-)) Glad to see you guys are all bonding so well now ;-)" > > Scott: Ha ha. I think. The smiley guy means you are glad. Really glad since he has two mouths. Or a superfluous chin. I can't tell. I wonder what that subtle ambiguity is meant to communicate. Maybe it is a signifier meant to alert the reader to the possibility that the next phrase might not be what it seems. Are we 'bonding' for real and is that why you are glad? Or are we jousting for real and you are not actually glad. And then we have the winky guy. The trickster figure. A conspiratorial wink. Do you then communicate that you really know what is going on? I'm joking. No really. .... Sarah: Very funny (I would have added another smiley, but don't want to tire you out interpreting another one!) Seeing consciousness sees visible object and then there is the proliferating, the conceptualising about all kinds of ideas on account of what has been seen, due to past accumulated sanna (memory) and vitakka (thinking) in particular. Alex & Rob E, the ideas about 'two mouths...superfluous chin..." and so on, are just imagined notions. They don't exist. If there was no thinking about what is seen in this way, there'd be no concepts at all. The "two mouths...and superfluous chin" don't arise and fall away because they never existed in the first place. They were just imagined. Citta and its associated factors can imagine anything according to the accumulated tendencies. All that is seen is visible object. .... > >Scott: Actually (and now I'm serious - no really), I like all this since it is a very good way to continue to consider the whole, complex thing about what constitutes harsh versus gentle speech. ... Sarah: And even now as we consider and reflect and conceptualise about what's seen, there can be direct understanding of the presently appearing reality. In the end, this is all that's of value. Anything else is.....just a concept. Metta Sarah ====== #118168 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hi Howard, all, >A: What word "car" points to is a certain functional collection of >rupas. > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: >A process of thinking associates the word 'car' with a thought-of >collection of rupas. > ------------------------------------------------ Right, if collection of rupas does exist. > Of course car as indivisible, constant, unchanging, singular > noumenon-in-itself doesn't exist. But that collection of rupas as anicca-dukkha-anatta > does. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Actually, it is even more complicated than that. The thought-of-car > has its basis in a multiplicity of sights, smells, and bodily sensations > across time. > ----------------------------------------------- Sure. Thought-of-a-car refers to a collection of 5 sense perceptions of certain collection of rupas we call by English word "car". With best wishes, Alex #118169 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:29 am Subject: Re: understanding of 4NT truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >pt: In general I agree. in practical terms, I'd just make a slightly >different emphasis - i.e. rather than saying that the path is about >realising all craving and the 4NT covering everything, which is >right when speaking in general terms - I'd rather say that in >practical terms it all comes down to understanding the presently >arising craving (for whatever object) as anicca, anatta, etc. >============================================ My understanding of the teaching is that understanding has to cover ALL times, and ALL occasions. Not just this one, though it is included as well. Mere collection of "this is anicca..." might not dispel the belief that "while this is anicca, that isn't" . Inductive reasoning and statistical observation is never fully certain. Even though one may have seen white swans, it doesn't mean that there can't be a black swan. >Pt: But I wonder if we also agree that if the object of present >citta is a concept, then panna will not be able to understand the >three characteristics at the time (and thus no insight will occur), >though it might with a later citta that takes perception as object >for example? >======================================================== I hope you've read my posts. My understanding is that concept = thought. Thought as nama is anicca, dukkha, anatta. What the thought points to can be a collection of rupas such as "computer" or "chair". These collections of rupas are also anicca, dukkha, anatta. Thought can also point to another thought or collection of thoughts, which are anicca-dukkha-anatta. We can agree to disagree regarding concepts. With best wishes, Alex #118170 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:34 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >Alex & Rob E, the ideas about 'two mouths...superfluous chin..." >and so on, are just imagined notions. They don't exist. >======================== As imaginations they do exist as imaginations. The idea of "two mouths" is based on seeing mouths and then putting them together in imagination. Kinda like taking an image of horse and man and creating a fictional idea of centaur. The original parts where actually seen, and then fantasy was abstractly based on them. The concept, or imagination, as thought does exist as thought. This as every thought comes and goes. It is anicca-dukkha-anatta. With best wishes, Alex #118171 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:46 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >P:I don't know about cars, don't care about cars, hate cars, one of >them killed my dog right in front of my eyes. >=============================== I am sorry. >P:As for people, I do agree that the conventional reflection of >ageing, illness and death has a place in conditioning samvega. >==================================================== Right. >P:But understanding dhammas is much more valuable. >====================== It depends what you mean by understanding dhammas. I believe that 4NT is crucial part of Dhamma. >That is what separates the BUddha from other philosophers. >============================================== Philosophies of many other people were impractical, nothing to say about some of which were immoral. Please read MN76 when you can. Ananda refuted other systems not because they were false, but because they were impractical. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/076-sandaka-e1\ .html What he recommended was practical (rather than philosophical) Dhamma. >P: Even the dumbest redneck can reflect on the impermanence of his >================================= I thought about a similar issue: Why those who work in the morgue do not develop dispassion toward bodies, life, etc. why they don't become anagamis and so forth? They do not understand 4NT. They do not wish to be freed from lust. They want to experience lust and sleep with their wives. So they ignore what they see so as to not be disgusted. They do not train to let go of craving. They try to look at lust inducing parts of their wives and other people's. For ordinary humans it seems that they want to crave. When you tell them drawbacks of something, they may say that "oh you are pessimist. Look at that pleasant thing. Don't focus on the negative". IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #118172 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Dear Nina, >N: True, no characteristics. I once heard Kh Sujin say that even >concepts are anatta in as far as they are non-self. >======================================== Is atta a concept? With best wishes, Alex #118173 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Dear Scott, Nina, >N:"True, no characteristics. I once heard Kh Sujin say that even >concepts are anatta in as far as they are non-self." >============================ >Scott: Sabbe dhamma anatta. >================================================ So concepts have characteristics of being anatta? Also how can concepts have no characteristics and yet be anatta (a characteristic)? With best wishes, Alex #118174 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 5:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "So concepts have characteristics of being anatta?" Scott: I've warned you about starting sentences with 'so.' Sabbe dhamma anatta. Anatta is lakkha.na in this case. A: "Also how can concepts have no characteristics and yet be anatta (a characteristic)?" Scott: Concepts have no sabhava. The English term 'characteristic' covers the two terms lakkha.na and sabhava, but these differ in meaning in ways the English can't convey. Scott. #118175 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 5:43 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, >Scott: Concepts have no sabhava. >============== What exactly do you mean by sabhava? With best wishes, Alex #118176 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 8:29 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "What exactly do you mean by sabhava?" I can't believe you are asking this. You've read on the list long enough to have read about this many, many times. Sabhaava is the Insubstantialist's Bane. From the PTS Pali-English Dictionary: "Sabhaava [sa+bhaava] 1. state (of mind), nature, condition...2. character, disposition, behaviour...3. truth, reality, sincerity..." Concepts do not have sabhaava, or 'own-nature' or however one wishes to phrase it. Ruupa, for example, has hardness as sabhaava. Concept has no sabhaava. Scott. #118177 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 8:41 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Howard, --------- <. . .> HCW: Cute stuff, Ken. But keep it for someone else, please. --------- KH: I generally keep it to myself, but it needs to be said occasionally. You and I are talking about two different teachings. Just as Alex is talking atta-belief to a group on anatta believers, you are talking control-belief to (in my case) a no-control believer. The difference lies in how we view conditioned dhammas. You say they are just as unreal as concepts, I say they just as real as nibbana. Whichever way we see it, there is a right way and a wrong way; the two do not go together. Ken H #118178 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. ashkenn2k dear Nina  yes there are 20 types of sakkaya ditthi as in the give aggregates, the commentaries of MN1 which explain the all is sakkayditthi, including what is conceived by the mind which is also an aggregate  there is no contradiction because an aggregate of mind cannot exist without an object. If the mind can exist without an object, then it will not be conditioned  thank you Ken O   >________________________________ >From: Nina van Gorkom >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 3:32 PM >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. > > > > >Op 14-sep-2011, om 18:43 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > >> Sakkaya ditthi is also about things outside, just like an >> uninstructed worldings does not known earth as earth, misconceive >> earth belongs to oneself or there is self in earth. This earth can >> be composite earth or objective earth as in kasina. Sakkaya ditthi >> is not restrictive to just aggregates, it is about the conventional >> objects as well. >------ >N: In many suttas it is explained that sakkaaya di.t.thi is with >regard to the five khandhas. Buddhist Dictionary: of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that >belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) >the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, >mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; >(11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them >(M. 44; S. XXII. 1).> >----- >Nina. > >> > > > > #118179 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Ken H  if you tell me where in the text said satipatthana is only just paramatha dhamma and no concept at all in the sutta, commentary or in the abhidhamma text, then I will talk to you more.  If not your talk, is only one side of satipatthana and not the whole of satipatthana. till date no one in DSG could tell me it is only paramatha dhamma.  dont base on interpretation, because everyone can have their own interpretation, lets talk about text. dont tell me about practise, because everyone could say their practise is the best.  so please show me the text. I can gurantee none of the DSG can prove it is just paramatha. Why i so confident, because the text always prove it  thank you   Ken O >________________________________ >From: Ken H >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 12:32 PM >Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: >> >> Dear Sarah >>  >> the text is clear, there are two ways, by elements or by body parts. We cannot just say because we understand the text in this way, so we think it is just elements. But the text did not restrict to one way, this means we are not being truthful to the text. No offense meant, but we must respect the texts so that it could remain intact and others have confidence in it. >>  >>  >> As long as there is understanding of anatta, it does not matter the objects of the mind. >>  >>  >> Ken O >--------------- > >Hi Ken O, > >The body parts, if they exist at all, are permanent, not impermanent. And they are satisfactory, not unsatisfactory. (Ask anyone!) And of course, they are our selves, not their own selves. > >In ultimate truth and reality, however, there are no body parts. That's why satipatthana (right understanding of conditioned dhammas) is the only way out. > >Ken H > > > > > #118180 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k dear Sarah  as I said, sutta is both ways, samantha and vipassana, serenity and insight, never solely one vipassana or just nama and rupa  Not just sutta, abhidhamma and commentaries, it always the same both are mentioned, samantha and vipassana  Ken O    >________________________________ >From: sarah >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 3:52 PM >Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara > > > >Dear Ken O, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >> Mind contact which the contact can have concepts as an object. If there is no mind contact with a concept, then we would not known the name of Buddha :-). How to learn dhamma then. >.... >S: The discussion was referring to "The World" as in the crumbling worlds of conditioned dhammas as included in the ayatanas. Impermanence and crumbling worlds and 'world's end' refer to the khandhas, conditioned dhammas, not concepts as you suggested below. > >Yes, of course cittas arising in the mind-door, accompanied by contact, usually have concepts as object. No one has ever suggested otherwise. However, these concepts are not the 'worlds' referred to in the ayatanas, to be directly realised. > >In other words, we need to consider translations and meanings of suttas carefully, otherwise we may come to the same conclusion you suggest that it is a world of concepts that the Buddha suggested are crumbling away, to be realised and make up the ayatanas. <....> #118181 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. ashkenn2k Dear Nina  I should explain more. Object does not have any wholesome or unwholesome. It is the cetasikas that causes them. perversion arise because of mana, ditthi and craving  Any idea of sakkayaditthi arise because of ditthi and not because it is concept. When one perceive a segment of earth as earth, the misconceiving arise because of the perversion of perception of there is a self on earth and not because the earth.  So any external objects that one perceive as a self, it is just ditthi   Ken O     >________________________________ >From: Ken O >To: "dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com" >Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011 11:51 PM >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. > > >dear Nina > >yes there are 20 types of sakkaya ditthi as in the give aggregates, the commentaries of MN1 which explain the all is sakkayditthi, including what is conceived by the mind which is also an aggregate > >there is no contradiction because an aggregate of mind cannot exist without an object. If the mind can exist without an object, then it will not be conditioned > <....> #118183 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 9:56 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, >S: Ruupa, for example, has hardness as sabhaava. Concept has no >sabhaava. >============================================== Is hardness as sabhava nature of rupa permanent or impermanent? With best wishes, Alex #118184 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nichiconn Hi Alex, > Is hardness as sabhava nature of rupa permanent or impermanent? hardness as an idea is neither. hardness as the presently arising characteristic is impermanent. we can say the hardness IS the rupa. surely, we all agree, in theory, that rupa is impermanent. pretty sure none of us Really know. connie #118185 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 10:32 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Connie, Nina, Scott, all, Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness? With best wishes, Alex #118186 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 10:53 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex Now that seems like a fair questiion. (Rather than wasting your and others' time by asking a questionwhen you know the answer, as with sabhava. Please try to stop doing that.) I think the important point is that awareness of the characteristic, undwrstanding of the characteristic, may or may not arise. That is the point. Understanding. Now. Us there awareness of hardness now? That is the only impirtant questiin about hardness, I think. IMHO, as you say. Metta, Phil > Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness? > #118187 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:01 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? truth_aerator Hello Phil, Nina, all, >P:Us there awareness of hardness now? That is the only impirtant >questiin about hardness, >====================================== As for, "is there awareness of hardness now"? What hardness can be at the moment of seeing, for example? Isn't hardness felt only by body-sense (kayappasada)? With best wishes, Alex #118188 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:04 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex > > >P:I don't know about cars, don't care about cars, hate cars, one of >them killed my dog right in front of my eyes. > >=============================== > > I am sorry. Ph: Thank you. It was very traumatic. I will read the morgue worker point carefully later. I think you might make an interesting point. As for MN suttas, there are some I think I understand (and possibly - stress on possibly - do) but many I know ummediately to be way way way over my head. I will check the one you refer to, thanks. Metta, Phil > >P:But understanding dhammas is much more valuable. > >====================== > > It depends what you mean by understanding dhammas. I believe that 4NT is crucial part of Dhamma. > > > > >That is what separates the BUddha from other philosophers. > >============================================== > > Philosophies of many other people were impractical, nothing to say about some of which were immoral. > > Please read MN76 when you can. Ananda refuted other systems not because they were false, but because they were impractical. > > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/076-sandaka-e1\ .html > > What he recommended was practical (rather than philosophical) Dhamma. > > > > >P: Even the dumbest redneck can reflect on the impermanence of his > >================================= > > I thought about a similar issue: Why those who work in the morgue do not develop dispassion toward bodies, life, etc. why they don't become anagamis and so forth? > > They do not understand 4NT. They do not wish to be freed from lust. They want to experience lust and sleep with their wives. So they ignore what they see so as to not be disgusted. They do not train to let go of craving. They try to look at lust inducing parts of their wives and other people's. For ordinary humans it seems that they want to crave. When you tell them drawbacks of something, they may say that "oh you are pessimist. Look at that pleasant thing. Don't focus on the negative". > > IMHO. > With best wishes, > > Alex > #118189 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:07 am Subject: Re: concepts scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness?" Scott: You're kidding, right? Scott. #118190 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:09 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nichiconn > > Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness? Phil's got a point, Alex, but I'll answer you: No. Usually, we say the kalapa / group of 8 characteristics / rupas arising together, but actually, i think, it's 8 avinibhoga-rupas + 4 lakkhana-rupas + 1 pariccheda-rupa = 13 rupas. connie >Phil: I think the important point is that awareness of the characteristic, undwrstanding of the characteristic, may or may not arise. That is the point. Understanding. Now. Us there awareness of hardness now? That is the only impirtant questiin about hardness, I think. IMHO, as you say. > > > > #118191 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:09 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex > > As for, "is there awareness of hardness now"? > > What hardness can be at the moment of seeing, for example? Isn't hardness felt only by body-sense (kayappasada)? Ph: Right. Different monents, different doors. Gotta run! Metta, Phil #118192 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:16 am Subject: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? truth_aerator Hello Scott, Connie, all, > A: "Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness?" > > Scott: You're kidding, right? >========== It is a fair question. What hardness is felt by eye-sense (Cakkhuppasada) at the moment when seeing occurs? With best wishes, Alex #118193 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:23 am Subject: Rhetorical questions serving no point. scottduncan2 Alex, A: "It is a fair question. What hardness is felt by eye-sense (Cakkhuppasada) at the moment when seeing occurs?" Scott: Make a point, Alex. Don't waste time with these non-questions. Scott. #118194 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Connie Isn't hardness the earth element, one of primary rupa, so always present? Metta, Phil #118195 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? philofillet - Hi Alex > It is a fair question. What hardness is felt by eye-sense (Cakkhuppasada) at the moment when seeing occurs? I answered as though you were new here, but you know the answer, so you are just setting us up for something. Maybe just make your point? This isn't a courtroom drama. Metta, Phil #118196 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:58 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? nichiconn Hi Phil, > > Isn't hardness the earth element, one of primary rupa, so always present? Yes. (but aren't you afraid someone will jump on 'always' - lol) Nyanatiloka: Ruupa-kalaapa = 'Corporeal Group', material unit, designating a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most primitive group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure eightfold unity' or 'octad' (suddha.t.thakakalaapa), to wit: the 4 elements (the solid, fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pa.thavii, aapo, tejo, vaayo; va.nna, gandha, rasa, ojaa). In Vis., and eslewhere, it is also called oja.t.thamaka-kalaapa, 'the octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'. The simplest form of living matter is the '9fold vitality unit' or 'life-ennead (jiivita-navaka-kalaapa), formed by adding 'vitality' to the octad. Seven decads, or units of ten (dasaka-kalaapa) are formed by adding to the 9fold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: heart (physical seat of mind), sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. See Vis. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS) p.164, 250; Asl. Tr., II, 413f. c: whew. connie #118197 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 12:17 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? truth_aerator Hello Phil, Scott, Connie, all, As you know, the teaching goes that with *every* most basic unit of rupa there are 8 qualities (four Great Elements, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence). Questions: How can eye experience hardness, odor, flavor? How can ear experience color, hardness, odor, flavor? How can nose experience color, hardness, flavor? similarly with other sense organs. They can't. Also since one process happens at a time (or so we are taught), it means that 5 sense organs cannot function simultaneously at the exact same moment. So we can't say that there is simultaneous awareness of all these characteristics through 5 sense organs and the mind (which is required to cognize cohesion). So "rupa" does not have fixed sabhava nature that is cognized every time. I believe that sabhava, concepts, and everything is anicca, dukkha, anatta. I do not agree with the idea of permanence one way or another (concepts don't fall away! Sabhava is permanent, etc) being added on. With best wishes, Alex #118198 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 1:33 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? nichiconn yes, Alex, > > As you know, the teaching goes that with *every* most basic unit of rupa there are 8 qualities (four Great Elements, colour, > odour, flavour and nutritive essence). > those are the sabhava qualities. then there are the 5 asabhavas as i mentioned earlier. > Questions: > How can eye experience hardness, odor, flavor? > How can ear experience color, hardness, odor, flavor? > How can nose experience color, hardness, flavor? > similarly with other sense organs. > They can't. > so we agree that what each of those Does experience is "fixed"; that seeing only sees visible object, etc. > Also since one process happens at a time (or so we are taught), it means that 5 sense organs cannot function simultaneously at the exact same moment. So we can't say that there is simultaneous awareness of all these characteristics through 5 sense organs and the mind (which is required to cognize cohesion). > right. and the asabhavas are also known thru the mind, according to my bookworm understanding. > So "rupa" does not have fixed sabhava nature that is cognized every time. > you've told me that rupa has 8 sabhava natures and only one is going to be experienced at a time. so "fixed" must be our hang up. how about 'one predominant' instead? > > I believe that sabhava, concepts, and everything is anicca, dukkha, anatta. I do not agree with the idea of permanence one way or another (concepts don't fall away! Sabhava is permanent, etc) being added on. > careful! lol, i know, you don't mean to include nibbana in 'everything'. let's talk some more about concepts. done with this hardness for now, connie #118199 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 2:29 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? nichiconn on second thought, Alex, also the nutritive essence is known thru the mind door and i'm not sure I don't confuse the sukhuma/subtle and asabhava rupas... still, hardness is hardness and always, when it's experienced, will be thru the same door way and be the same kind of experience, etc. connie