#118600 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:09 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > R: "...Panna is wisdom or clear knowing, not insight. Insight is vipassana. It is a different cetasika..." .... S: Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to "vipassana practice" or "vipassana meditation", it is an incorrect use of vipassana. More in "Useful Posts" under 'vipassana in the texts' and 'understanding -right' Metta Sarah p.s At least your wife didn't tell you to throw out your books! Perhaps, one day, she'll take an interest too, but no expectations! ===== #118601 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:27 pm Subject: Re: Panna and the not yet known sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, Just adding a quickie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I was curious about this sentence from SPD, p.379: "When panna realizes that there are namas which are not yet known, it will also study and investigate these and in this way the characteristic of nama can clearly appear as only an element which experiences, only a reality, not a being, person or self. " ..... S: Briefly, as I read it, panna develops and understands the characteristics of more and more namas, so it becomes very obvious that nama is just that dhamma which experiences. It's not enough just to understand seeing or hearing or attachment - panna has to know many, many namas in daily life, to get used to knowing their characteristics and the nature of nama. It's not a matter of even "panna trying to know" - panna just understands what appears. Also, on the point about rupas and namas - the understanding of both have to develop, otherwise it'll always be the idea of "I see" and so on. If we try to set an order, such as particular rupas first, or think there is understanding of rupas but not namas, it shows it's not the development of satipatthana yet. Metta Sarah .... > At first when I read this it felt like a recipe for trying too hard to grasp "namas which are not yet known", but the point is it is panna, not self trying to know. I wonder if this is how "panna works its way", always performing its function slowly but surely at the border of the known and the unknown, but self interferes, trying to speed up tge natural development of understanding, dismissing panna again and again, unknowingly... #118602 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:39 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: > > > 1. dukkha dukkha, referring to unpleasant feeling which is so very apparent > > > > 2. Viparinama dukkha, the dukkha of change, referring to the change of pleasant feeling when what we enjoy and crave for falls away > > > > 3. Sankhara dukkha, the dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas as taught in the 4 NT. > > Not only is unpleasant feeling or pleasant feeling dukkha, but also wholesome states, even sati and panna, are dukkha. All khandhas are subject to clinging - panca upadana khandha dukkha. > >R: I know generally about these types of dukkha, but very much appreciate the concise and clear summary above. It is good to remember that even kusala dhammas are dukkha. That is easy to forget, isn't it? .... S: Yes. That's why I think "stress" is misleading as a translation of dukkha. Kusala dhammas are inherently unsatisfactory because they are impermanent, but "stressful"? I don't think so. ... > When it comes to the path of liberation from suffering I would agree that you can't get there without seeing and understanding directly that the objects of clinging are inherently dukkha and not-self. But if that were a requirement for basic disenchantment or basic understanding of suffering, no one would ever have an interest in the Buddha's teaching. So I think the path starts from conventional understanding and becomes more refined from there. Guess you don't agree... :-/ . >R: Good to get back to the present moment. I wonder what's happening there... :-) .... S: more of the same - seeing, hearing, likes, dislikes, occasionally a little understanding perhaps:-) And yes, we can spend a lot of time theorising about what past experiences or ways of thinking led to any understanding now, but it's really all useless speculation. Much more precious is to be aware now. > > > (btw, I appreciate your interest in this regard and your discussions with Scott and others. Also loved the "knitting thread" between you and Ken H:-))) > > :-) That was fun - unlike the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries offered by Dr. Scott. [just kidding......] ... S: :-) Well, even all "the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries" come down to moments of seeing of visible object, thinking, aversion, wise considering and so on. Just more dhammas, no Dr Scott in actuality - just our fantasies about him in his white coat inflicting torture with his scalpel and other instruments!! Always back to the present moment.... ... > That's a good point. I certainly get a good workout every time I come around! .... S: We all benefit from you workouts too, so keep them up! Metta Sarah ======= #118603 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Again, if there's any idea of an "us" to be spurred on, to make any effort, to practice any concentration or mindfulness it's wrong. > >R: I don't think you have to invoke the self to engage the right actions that come out of the right cetana, etc. > > >S: Just hearing of particular sounds, wise attention and other wholesome dhammas, wise considering, > >R: Wise considering is conceptual is it not? Is there no idea of self considering? Just wondering. .... S: If there's any idea of self considering, it's not wise considering. If right cetana now leads to right actions (i.e kusala kamma), then there in no "invoing the self", nor is there any idea of our needing to be spurred on or to make an effort or to concentrate. There are just conditioned dhammas such as right effort performing their tasks at those moments. ... > > >S: and right understanding of realities which is the right practice. All conditioned dhammas. If this seems "lacksadaisical" or laid-back or a "do nothing approach", it would only be because of a taking of practice and path for being made by a Self. > >R: I think there's something inbetween doing nothing and being self-based, which is just doing what is called for, not because of an idea of control, but because it is the given assignment. .... S: Any ideas about 'doing' or 'not doing' anything are suspect as I see it. Just dhammas performing their tasks, rightly or wrongly, in a wholesome or unwholesome manner. ... > Who is having this conversation? [Not a rhetorical question.] .... S: Conditioned dhammas, that's all. Metta Sarah ===== #118604 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:57 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >{...now I just have to hide the books, and get rid of some more "non-Dhamma" books to make more space. Okay, end of emergency family-crisis Dhamma-book note.] ... S: Could be much worse..... :) Still, present moment realities.... .... > I don't know; it seems to me he said that for those who wanted to develop right concentration and mindfulness, they ought to find a quiet place, sit cross-legged and put mindfulness to the fore; then concentrate on the breath and develop sati and samatha through a series of practices that are clearly outlined in the appropriate suttas. In the satipatthana sutta he goes through the four frames of reference and shows how to regard each one in order to develop the discernment to directly discern each type of paramatha dhamma in turn. Why would he go through all that if he didn't mean those steps as actual practices? .... S: Just daily life, present realities, for those addressed. Sitting under a tree in ancient India as a bhikkhu, putting on the cloak, walking, eating - anytime, any place, just the rupas of the body we find so important, feelings, cittas, other dhammas. Panna can arise anytime. ... >And why would Buddhaghosa go into such explicit detail, breaking down these suttas into various explicit exercises to develop the capacities outlined in the suttas, if these were not understood as explicit practices, meant to be practiced by actual practitioners? One of the problems with talking about these things and talking about paramatha dhammas, is that there is such a clear obvious sense in what is actually written and recorded, that these practices were meant to be studied and exercised, not ignored and retranslated into dhammas-only understandings. .... S: The buddha understood and explained all kinds of dhammas in all kinds of situations with the purpose of showing that there can be right understanding of any conditioned dhamma at all as anatta. Otherwise, no way to experience the unconditioned. ... >R: Hope you have a good trip, Sarah. And of course, "no rush" on any replies. Ha ha - I haven't used up the fun from that yet. Be well! ... S: Thx Rob & all, in touch in a couple of days or so. I'll be following the "mutual eye-rolling" pots and any others:-)) Metta Sarah ===== #118605 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:23 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > >S:Alex, I've only just noticed the subject heading - was this one of >yours? What does it mean???? > >================ > >A: It was from a discussion some time ago that not all sabhava qualities are simultaneously perceived at a single instance. ... S: Thx Alex. Cakkhuppasada is eye-sense, a rupa. How can a rupa ever experience another rupa? Perhaps you meant seeing consciousness, cakkhu vi~n~nana? Even so, as clarified later, it can only ever experience visible object. Hope you saw my other posts to you. ...talking of which, did you see the one in which I asked: ">A: And the only way the right effort arises, if one actual does it. ..... S: What do you mean by "one" here?" (#118418) Metta Sarah ==== #118606 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., A few responses to the Soap Box Soliloquy (in small bits): R: "...It basically comes down to the belief that all of the things of life that we normally perceive do not in fact exist..." Scott: Does it? You have yet to define your term 'perceive.' You haven't shown that it is anything more than thoughts about the world, nor have you made any sort of claim as to what sort of ontology you subscribe too. What, of 'all the things of life' exist. List some of them and show how they exist. Scott. #118607 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I understand the distinction, and the radical view that is taken towards that distinction. It basically comes down to the belief that all of the things of life that we normally perceive do not in fact exist..." Scott: Are there not objects corresponding to the five doorways (leaving aside the mind-door)? Do these 'exist'? Scott. #118608 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:12 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...the individual dhammas that appear to citta are on a continuum with the conventional objects and activities that we encounter in everyday life....both the conventional view and the conventional teaching...are valid as ways to conduct oneself and to practice,," Scott: You totally made this up. You take terms that have a specific meaning within the Abhidhamma system and then twist them to fit your Very Own Theory (which is yours). Then you claim to 'practice' in accordance with the Theory, while never actually demonstrating the 'practice' as it occurs in your life. This 'continuum' of yours is nothing more than a confused collection of categories, the elements of which being nothing more than hybrid concatenations of concepts all mashed together. What is a 'conventional object'? Give one example. True of False: Colour equals tree. Scott. #118609 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:38 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Just remember that the dhammas-only view does not allow *any* reality for conventional living...It's hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only and in the full unreality of conventional living expressing itself as a thorough enjoyment of conventional living while merely talking about -- paying lip service to -- the sole reality of paramatha dhammas." Scott: Who *are* you preaching to, man? (Note: Rhetorical question.) Give one clear example of 'conventional living.' What is this supposed to be? Didn't 'the Buddha' (for whom you like to speak) demonstrate that all this 'convention' was not where it's at? It's 'hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only' only because we are hypnotized by the illusion of 'conventionality.' Show how 'conventional living' has 'partial reality.' Are you referring to ignorance-based 'perception'? (And by this I mean citta with avijjaa (moha cetasika) and the accompanying thoughts this spins off.) Scott. #118610 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., (Phil), R: "...Citta does experience its object - that's its function...That's citta having an experience...Notice that 'process' is in there too...Unless there's some crime in using 'experience' as a noun with regard to citta, I think 'single-moment experience' is a pretty good way of talking about the events above in the general statement I was making." Scott: The 'experiencing' of the object is citta. 'Citta having an experience' is You. You twist the arising and falling away of dhammas in a series and suggest that now this 'series' hangs together somehow as a whole, and this is what you call 'experience' because it equates with your phenomenology (which is based on what you consciously 'experience'). You are referring to 'my experience' or 'your experience' or 'her experience,' etc., when you use the term 'experience.' I contend that you do not accept the Abhidhamma as set out except as you re-fashion it to fit your theories. Scott. #118611 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and all) - In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:02:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Just remember that the dhammas-only view does not allow *any* reality for conventional living. In truth, if you truly believe that this is the case, you would give your stuff away and stop participating in conventional life. It's hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only and in the full unreality of conventional living expressing itself as a thorough enjoyment of conventional living while merely talking about -- paying lip service to -- the sole reality of paramatha dhammas. ================================== Using a contemporary-chemistry-story terminology: If one had (only) microscopic vision in looking at tables, trees, water and water glasses, one would see only molecules. And, in fact, that would be correct seeing - so far as it goes. (One, of course, could have still stronger microscopic vision, making even the molecules disappear.) But even putting on the back-burner the issue of molecules being relatively macroscopic constructs, at the level of molecules, they do not operate in isolation, but in complexly patterned interaction. A chemist who was unaware of that complexity, that patterning, and that interaction would be unemployable, and a person whose perception didn't reflect it would be unable to function "in the world". The complexly patterned interaction of molecules lies at the heart of chemistry, and not the "separate" molecules alone. The foregoing is, from the Dhammic perspective, just an analogy: In place of molecules, refer to rupas. In place of stronger microscopic vision, refer to observing the rupic stages of arising, standing while changing, and ceasing, and in place of interactions, refer to conditionality. Both analysis and synthesis is needed for correctly apprehending reality. It is no accident that the Abhidhamma Pitaka incudes both the Dhammasangani and the Patthana among the books. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118612 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:15 am Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Catching up with your former mails. I very much like he transcript on vipassana ~naa.na. I do not mind the i-phone spelling mistakes. Op 25-sep-2011, om 13:24 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > vipasanna-nana can understand all namas and rupa > which arise one by one, right there, through each doorway, so panna, > at the moment of the sense door process, can understand the rupa > with vipasanna nana which is much more clearer than when itfs not > vipasanna nana. > > --- > > Ph: > To repeat a sentence from above - vipasanna-nana can understand > all namas and rupa which arise one by one, right there, through each > doorway.h But there is only one nama or one rupa at any moment for > viapasanna-nana to understand, isnft there? This sentence makes it > sound as if vipassana-nana is lasting longer than a moment and is > understanding lots of namas and cittas arising. Doesn't vipasanna- > nana fall away in a moment like any other citta? > ------ N: Kh Sujin explained that there are many moments of vipassana ~naa.na when a stage is reached. The ruupa, for example visible object, is cognized first through the eye-door and then through the mind-door. Vipassanaa ~naa.na is pa~n~naa of the stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na that clearly knows visible object through the mind-door; mind- door processes and sense-door processes alternate very rapidly, and no one could prevent vipassanaa ~naa.na to stop when it is time for a sense-door process. It clearly knows ruupa also in a sense-door process. We could not count how many processes are going on. Vipassanaa ~naa.na also knows naama through the mind-door, and it can be any naama, it need not be seeing. It can be feeling. ------ Nina. > #118613 From: "connie" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:34 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta, ending of the Nines nichiconn Dear Friends, DN 33 Nines end: CSCD < Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:07 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > ohmigodohmigodohmigodoh my GOD!!!! heh heh - most appreciated. > > Note the word "experience" in there for what happens through the six doors, and that realities are "experienced" as nama and rupa. > > > > "There are sense-door processes and mind-door processes time and again, and objects are experienced during these processes of citta." > > > > That's citta having an experience, Dudes. > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. Of course! > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. This has been explained as "streams or groups" of cittas that are experienced separately in an individual way, even though there's really no individual experiencing them. It's just separate groups of citta, working out the "stuff" in that particular stream or group. So we need to look at *our own* experience and see what those realities are. It doesn't do any good to try to look at someone else's; we can't experience them. > You have kind of been in a tough trap, because Scott (and I) asked you to tell us about your practice, *your* experiences, and as soon as we start talking about them, well, you know.... Exactly right, and don't I know it! I stepped into the trap willingly, for reasons unknown to Scott, , for the purpose of opening up the discussion. If someone has to be the guinea pig it might as well be me. In any case, it's interesting to see all the assumptions that arise around such reports and how little they have to do with my simple experience of those moments. > from the beginning, perhaps it would have been best to refuse to answer and go, as you have done now, to Abhidhamma related texts that describe dhamma processes in an impersonal way, which is how they actually happen...or something like that. Well it's not a bad idea to at least back them up with some official texts. Even the stuff that Scott laughed at can be backed up to a decent extent, if I can find the sources I ripped those ideas off from - either commentaries or Vism. > And by developing a thorough understanding of dhamma processes as taught in Abhidhamma, tentatively, tentatively, ventured into your own experiences, strictly in line with Abhidhamma explanation. Yeah, that could have been interesting and worthwhile, if I had any hope of developing the necessary knowledge in the short run. I will have to either terminate this at some point, or else keep playing it by ear. > This is DSG, after all, that is kind of the ground DSG was founded on. You are right about that. > But I think you have been quite admirable in your effort to explain things. Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118615 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:12 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi again Rob, > > R: Does anyone start the path with pariyatti? I wouldn't think so... > > c: you're probably right: most make up their own 'Buddhism'. > > R: That's an interesting presumption. You mean that they don't find the one right Buddhism that you are aware of? What would that be? > Whether the find the Buddhism, your Buddhism or some other Buddhism, they will still start out without pariyatti. And so, the path begins with relative ignorance for everyone. > ------- > c: Pariyatti is (beginning) Dhamma. The only way is sati - there is no 'other Buddhism'. I'm no real Buddhist - no 8fold Path moments here, and none of those begin with ignorance. > my 2 cents - keep the change, :-) Thanks for the two cents. That would have bought a fountain soda about 70 years ago. So when someone discovers the written Dhamma and begins to explore it with interest, no understanding even of basic concepts, but they begin to get an idea of what Buddhism is about - that is starting to explore Buddhism with ignorance, and that is the reading and considering that will lead to conceptual understanding and eventually to pariyatti - am I wrong about that? My point is just that we start out in ignorance of Dhamma and then find out about it a bit at a time until we have some understanding which then develops further. I don't think that moments of right understanding/panna just come flying up out of nowhere, do they, especially given that hearing the Dhamma is one of the conditions for understanding to arise... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #118616 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 12-okt-2011, om 6:49 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I take it that 'jhana' consists of both the jhana-cittas and the > > jhana-factors that accompany those cittas? Is the object of the > > jhana-citta the subtle breath, and the rupas involved in or > > associated with the breath? > ------ > N: First sentence is correct. The object: breath, a ruupa conditioned > by citta. Awareness and understanding of it also while developing > jhaana with this subject, but not understanding of the degree of > realizing anattaa. Thank you, that comes through pretty clear for me. > You mention now and then thinking of impermanence. I thought of you > while listening to Kh Sujin going over the commentary on ageing which > is dukkha. Vis. XX, 73, natural materiality, that is external > materiality. "It becomes evident to him by means of an asoka tree > shoot..." > Kh Sujin said that if you like trees you can see differences when it > ages. This can remind us of the truth of impermanence of ruupas. The > Vis. describes the different colours a tree takes. Dark green leaves > become withered foliage and then falls from its stem. > We know that thinking is not the same of awareness of naama and > ruupa, but we are so forgetful and it is good to have reminders all > around us. I find this kind of metaphor helpful, and also appreciate the color that it gives to the Dhamma for understanding. Thanks for sharing that. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118617 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 12-okt-2011, om 7:05 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Rob to Phil: Yeah, I may have to get back to you on that in a > > couple of decades. At the current rate, my ability to translate > > what I'm talking about into strict Abhidhamma terms may be a long > > time in coming. But I get your point. > ----- > N: Do not worry about names and terms. Abhidhamma is not in the book > as Kh Sujin often says. It pertains to reality here and now. No need > to think of classifications. Thanks Nina. Please tell Scott. :-))) Best, Rob E. == = = = = = = #118618 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: H: (D: Frankly speaking I have doubts that 'person ' may be called 'simply a conventional designation ' , a concept (see above). --------------------------------------------- It is a fuzzy collection of namas and rupas that act in concert. The speaking of it as an individual thing, however, is at best a useful manner of speech, and at worse an expression of cognitive error. D: this concert is indeed individual , the music played is kamma. ) ----------------------------------------- HCW: Well. now you're being poetic! ;-) Of course, by "in concert" I only mean "together and interactively". ' D: not necessarily ;-) , consider an orchestra , the musicans are playing together and interactively a sinfony , this concert is truely individual isn't? H ( D: Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one?) ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. D: you mean nama and rupas function in concert , don't you? in the analogy : the musicans and their instruments (which provide the means to act) D: I vaguely remember we have talked before about the whole and its parts , in particular: (the (common) whole is more than the sum of its parts.. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Functionally, yes. As I said, the namas act in concert - and in doing so, the effect is different from the case of their acting alone. (Analogy: There's a heavy table that needs to be carried. Case 1, person A tries to carry it and fails. Case 2, person B tries to carry it and fails. Case 3, acting in concert, persons A and B try to carry it and succeed.)------------------------------------------------- D: Something seems to disturb you using here khandas or chariot to make a point. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't think so. (???) D: the living being, the F1-chariot running, the orchestra playing , there is an special outcome due which is more than trhe single action of the interrelated H:( D: the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.) ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I don't disagree with that. This is the nature of "acting in concert". However, it doesn't turn a collection of phenomena into a single phenomenon of its own. D: it does ! This coming together isn't simply a collection of phenomena -. Think about the sinfony , no single musican represents it, but by playing together the sinfony comes into being. H:I have no problem with calling a collection of phenomena that are interrelated and act in concert "a system". (In the past I've called it "an aggregation".) It is, nonetheless, not a single phenomenon; it is still a collection. To view it as an individual is a useful convention, especially of speech, but only a convention, not a reality. D:, the living being is a reality ( and so is the sinfony ) . It is real that I write an E-Mail to you now The khandas are reality (and so the musicans and their instruments) , and so are organs, cells, molecules , atoms or subatomic particles , but each on its own dimenson. I do not understand the reason , why taking the underlying interaction to be the only reality and calling the outcome conventional ? To think about a person or a certain music is a concept , but not the actual encounter or the listening in a concert hall. H(D:The Buddha stated that by the get-together of all 5 parts ( dito in the Khanda grouping of 3 or even only 2 , when vinnana is understood to be nama) of a living being do we speak. The interesting point is, that in no single part it is possible to find the property of the system , or function. Hence refering to the living being , the person or anticipated self , no substance can be found. I think it is a useful analogy. )--------------------------------------------- HCW: So long as we don't reify the collection, I have no problem with this D: that's the point! Is a living being a thing? Is the level we are able to analyse the only reality whereas the analyser isn't? ( And if , as we do not know the dimension(s) above our level , wouldn't we neglect that it does not mean that there is not? ). I think it is the suspicion of a core/substance you have a problem with . However the (common ) whole of each level is coreless to its parts , like water for oxygen and hydrogen, or the organ for its cells. I miss the reason to specify each whole as being only conventional truth instead of reality. H:( D: I haven't yet read much about this school to develop such sensibility .. but I may..) ----------------------------------------- HCW: I think it is an odd school that wants to be both "attic" and "anattic"! (Maybe "lunattic"! LOL!) D: well, when we analyse the living being as done by D.O. , the process of conditioned phenomena as a whole represent the person (but no core, no self to be found) . HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) with Metta Dieter P.S. : how about getting back to simply 'H' instead of HCW ( looks so analytical ;-) ( #118619 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:17 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > Thanks, Sarah! I hope that the moments of good humour create some kusala kamma for those involved, even though I'm not sure if it's on the official list of kusala cetasikas... :-) > .... > S: :-) Well, to be very nit-picky about it, I think you are meaning kusala vipaka (result of kusala kamma). Even then, the kusala vipaka can only ever be the result of our kusala kamma, not the result of someone else's good humour. > > For example, the seeing of pleasant visible object now is the result of past kusala kamma primarily. > > As for the good humour and kusala cittas - as usual, only panna can know. Lots of lobha in between the moments of kindness and consideration for others, I find. > > OK, brief answers only - I'm supervising a TV technician as I write and pack...... So if someone tells a joke and I enjoy it and laugh, that experience is based on vipaka from the past and not on my reaction to the present joke? Just hoping to clarify this. And of course, no rush on the answer! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118620 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:28 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > R: "...Panna is wisdom or clear knowing, not insight. Insight is vipassana. It is a different cetasika..." > .... > S: Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to "vipassana practice" or "vipassana meditation", it is an incorrect use of vipassana. If I understand you correctly, when vipassana-nana arises it is not the same cetasika as panna, but panna causes the development of those vipassana moments. In other words, just to clarify a little more, panna keeps growing gradually -- right understanding -- and at certain moments it yields vipassana-nana moments, moments in which some new insight is added to the panna. Would that be more or less correct? I think that Scott and I are confused in sorting this out because of the extremely close association between panna and vipassana, and the role that panna plays in developing vipassana, and perhaps vice versa as well. When vipassana-nana arises does it not bring the forthcoming moments of panna up to a new level of understanding? Sometimes though, vipassana is referred to as vipassana-panna, which is used as a synonym for vipassana/insight, but I think it may have a more technical meaning as the "highest insight" that combines with panna close to enlightenment. Is that at all correct? ... > p.s At least your wife didn't tell you to throw out your books! Perhaps, one day, she'll take an interest too, but no expectations! She already has an appreciation for some of the things I read to her or that we discuss. She also comes from a basic sense that the world as we see it is not the true reality, so we have a nice exchange. However, when things -- even good books -- start to pile up, it makes our little condo get somewhat oppressive, so I am sympathetic. Clearing out 'worldly stuff' and making more space for Dhamma books is good! Reading them is even better! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118621 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:31 am Subject: Re: Panna and the not yet known epsteinrob Hi Sarah, Phil and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Phil & all, > > Just adding a quickie > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > I was curious about this sentence from SPD, p.379: "When panna realizes that there are namas which are not yet known, it will also study and investigate these and in this way the characteristic of nama can clearly appear as only an element which experiences, only a reality, not a being, person or self. " > ..... > S: Briefly, as I read it, panna develops and understands the characteristics of more and more namas, so it becomes very obvious that nama is just that dhamma which experiences. It's not enough just to understand seeing or hearing or attachment - panna has to know many, many namas in daily life, to get used to knowing their characteristics and the nature of nama. The passage says panna "will also study and investigate." This brings me back to my favorite cetasikas at the moment, vittakha and vicara. It seems that they would be the foot-soldiers or tools of the panna that further inquires into the nature of the namas. Would that be correct? They seem like the "probing and investigating" functions. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118622 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:42 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Just remember that the dhammas-only view does not allow *any* reality for conventional living...It's hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only and in the full unreality of conventional living expressing itself as a thorough enjoyment of conventional living while merely talking about -- paying lip service to -- the sole reality of paramatha dhammas." > > Scott: Who *are* you preaching to, man? (Note: Rhetorical question.) You. I want you to live a more austere life as a monk, while I continue to crave chocolate and go jogging. > Give one clear example of 'conventional living.' What is this supposed to be? All the supposed daily activities that one does with the body that are supposed to be acting on oneself or external objects in order to do this, that or the other task, or satisfy this, that or the other craving. > Didn't 'the Buddha' (for whom you like to speak) Well that's only because we're so close! > demonstrate that all this 'convention' was not where it's at? That's what I'm saying - why indulge in it if it's a hallucination? > It's 'hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only' only because we are hypnotized by the illusion of 'conventionality.' Doesn't doing all sorts of normal activities which feed craving and cilnging just feed the illusion and produce more akusala cittas? > Show how 'conventional living' has 'partial reality.' I don't think it has partial reality. I think it has valid conventional reality and exists as such in its own right, until such time as perception is able to see the true constituent elements of experience. But I don't make a clean break between those two ways of perceiving. > Are you referring to ignorance-based 'perception'? (And by this I mean citta with avijjaa (moha cetasika) and the accompanying thoughts this spins off.) I would say that conventional life/perception has a mixture of moemnts of avija and other things. It's not cut and dry, and so should not necessarily be thrown out with the bathwater. But if you think it's total illusion and has nothing to do with paramatha dhammas, why not stop indulging it and feeding the cravings of various worldly desires? Didn't Buddha say it was better to live as a monk if you had the choice? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118623 From: "connie" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nichiconn hi Howard, I'm not a fan of chemistry/physics analogies, but you might want to see what can be done for your poor chemist... i'm thinking about the arahant householder who is also 'unable to function "in the world"'. connie > ================================== > even putting on the back-burner the issue of molecules being relatively macroscopic constructs, at the level of molecules, they do not operate in isolation, but in complexly patterned interaction. A chemist who was unaware of that complexity, that patterning, and that interaction would be unemployable, and a person whose perception didn't reflect it would be unable to function "in the world". The complexly patterned interaction of molecules lies at the heart of chemistry, and not the "separate" molecules alone. > The foregoing is, from the Dhammic perspective, just an analogy: #118624 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:46 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and all) - > > In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:02:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Just remember that the dhammas-only view does not allow *any* reality for > conventional living. In truth, if you truly believe that this is the > case, you would give your stuff away and stop participating in conventional > life. It's hard to imagine a real belief in dhammas-only and in the full > unreality of conventional living expressing itself as a thorough enjoyment of > conventional living while merely talking about -- paying lip service to -- > the sole reality of paramatha dhammas. > ================================== > Using a contemporary-chemistry-story terminology: If one had (only) > microscopic vision in looking at tables, trees, water and water glasses, one > would see only molecules. And, in fact, that would be correct seeing - so > far as it goes. (One, of course, could have still stronger microscopic > vision, making even the molecules disappear.) But even putting on the > back-burner the issue of molecules being relatively macroscopic constructs, at the > level of molecules, they do not operate in isolation, but in complexly > patterned interaction. A chemist who was unaware of that complexity, that > patterning, and that interaction would be unemployable, and a person whose > perception didn't reflect it would be unable to function "in the world". The > complexly patterned interaction of molecules lies at the heart of chemistry, and > not the "separate" molecules alone. > The foregoing is, from the Dhammic perspective, just an analogy: In > place of molecules, refer to rupas. In place of stronger microscopic vision, > refer to observing the rupic stages of arising, standing while changing, > and ceasing, and in place of interactions, refer to conditionality. I think that is a good metaphor. Not only that, but rupas do arise in set sequences that reflect at least certain arrangements of "physical reality." And conditionality is a kind of interaction - sort of the way dominoes interact. > Both analysis and synthesis is needed for correctly apprehending > reality. It is no accident that the Abhidhamma Pitaka incudes both the > Dhammasangani and the Patthana among the books. Can I borrow your copies for a few days? [Don't tell my wife.] Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118625 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:52 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...All the supposed daily activities that one does with the body that are supposed to be acting on oneself or external objects in order to do this, that or the other task, or satisfy this, that or the other craving." Scott: In what sense are these real? R: "...I don't think it has partial reality. I think it has valid conventional reality and exists as such in its own right, until such time as perception is able to see the true constituent elements of experience. But I don't make a clean break between those two ways of perceiving..." Scott: You keep referring to something called 'conventional reality.' You keep referring to something called 'perception' and imply thereby that with a change in 'perception' comes a change in 'reality.' Do you think that vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer to two separate realities? Scott. #118626 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:50 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., (Sarah), S: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." Scott: Note that Sarah clarifies 'panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana...' Still just pan~n~naa cetasika. Vipassanaa is not a separate cetasika. Scott. #118627 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/12/2011 1:16:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: H: (D: Frankly speaking I have doubts that 'person ' may be called 'simply a conventional designation ' , a concept (see above). --------------------------------------------- It is a fuzzy collection of namas and rupas that act in concert. The speaking of it as an individual thing, however, is at best a useful manner of speech, and at worse an expression of cognitive error. D: this concert is indeed individual , the music played is kamma. ) ----------------------------------------- HCW: Well. now you're being poetic! ;-) Of course, by "in concert" I only mean "together and interactively". ' D: not necessarily ;-) , consider an orchestra , the musicans are playing together and interactively a sinfony , this concert is truely individual isn't? -------------------------------------------- HCW: No, not truly. It is a collection of interrelated musicians and instruments and leader and music, etc, etc, functioning together. We view it, conceptually, and speak of it, as a unit. ------------------------------------------- H ( D: Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one?) ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. D: you mean nama and rupas function in concert , don't you? in the analogy : the musicans and their instruments (which provide the means to act) ---------------------------------------- HCW: I wasn't speaking of an orchestra then. I was speaking of a person/being. -------------------------------------- D: I vaguely remember we have talked before about the whole and its parts , in particular: (the (common) whole is more than the sum of its parts.. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Functionally, yes. As I said, the namas act in concert - and in doing so, the effect is different from the case of their acting alone. (Analogy: There's a heavy table that needs to be carried. Case 1, person A tries to carry it and fails. Case 2, person B tries to carry it and fails. Case 3, acting in concert, persons A and B try to carry it and succeed.)------------------------------------------------- D: Something seems to disturb you using here khandas or chariot to make a point. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't think so. (???) D: the living being, the F1-chariot running, the orchestra playing , there is an special outcome due which is more than trhe single action of the interrelated --------------------------------------- HCW: I don't dispute that, but I don't describe it as you do. The namas acting together yield a different result than when acting alone. --------------------------------------------- H:( D: the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.) ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I don't disagree with that. This is the nature of "acting in concert". However, it doesn't turn a collection of phenomena into a single phenomenon of its own. D: it does ! ---------------------------------------- HCW: Only as a matter of convention. A collection of phenomena is not in reality a single phenomenon. We may think of this as so and speak of it in such terms, but that isn't the reality as far as I can see. --------------------------------------- This coming together isn't simply a collection of phenomena -. -------------------------------------- HCW: It is a collection of interrelated phenomena functioning together harmoniously. ------------------------------------ Think about the sinfony , no single musican represents it, but by playing together the sinfony comes into being. ------------------------------------- HCW: We speak of a symphony orchestra in such a way, and we think of it so. But it is a multiplicity of things, and, in fact, there is no "it" at all except in terms of thinking and speaking. ----------------------------------- H:I have no problem with calling a collection of phenomena that are interrelated and act in concert "a system". (In the past I've called it "an aggregation".) It is, nonetheless, not a single phenomenon; it is still a collection. To view it as an individual is a useful convention, especially of speech, but only a convention, not a reality. D:, the living being is a reality ( and so is the sinfony ) . --------------------------------------- HCW: Well, Dieter, it's coming down to you saying "yes" and me saying "no"! ;-) --------------------------------------- It is real that I write an E-Mail to you now --------------------------------------- HCW: Of course it is a fact. That is how we express this true matter practically, in a shorthand fashion. To spell it out at the paramattha-dhamma level (still a matter of convention for me, BTW, though closer to reality) would probably take a year. We simply cannot speak that way. In fact, to be fully faithful to reality, we would have to not speak at all, for it would require a transcendental infinity of time to accomplish it! ------------------------------------------ The khandas are reality (and so the musicans and their instruments) , and so are organs, cells, molecules , atoms or subatomic particles , but each on its own dimenson. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: You are dealing with levels of thinking and speech conventions - levels of conceptualization, not levels of reality. Actual reality is inexpressible. As soon as we say anything, we are dealing with convention and not reality. As Seung Sahn, the Korean Son master, used to say: "Open mouth already mistake!" ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- I do not understand the reason , why taking the underlying interaction to be the only reality and calling the outcome conventional ? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Speaking of collections as individuals is convention. --------------------------------------------------- To think about a person or a certain music is a concept , but not the actual encounter or the listening in a concert hall. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: And what is experienced there? Sights, sounds, and emotions for the most part, all interrelated and mutually conditioning. --------------------------------------------------- H(D:The Buddha stated that by the get-together of all 5 parts ( dito in the Khanda grouping of 3 or even only 2 , when vinnana is understood to be nama) of a living being do we speak. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. So we speak. -------------------------------------------------- The interesting point is, that in no single part it is possible to find the property of the system , or function. Hence refering to the living being , the person or anticipated self , no substance can be found. I think it is a useful analogy. )--------------------------------------------- HCW: So long as we don't reify the collection, I have no problem with this D: that's the point! Is a living being a thing? Is the level we are able to analyse the only reality whereas the analyser isn't? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no analyzer, not thinker, no actor. ----------------------------------------------. ( And if , as we do not know the dimension(s) above our level , wouldn't we neglect that it does not mean that there is not? ). I think it is the suspicion of a core/substance you have a problem with . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What do you mean by 'core' other than identity? There is no core, self, identity, or "thingness" to a person, for what we call a person is nothing other than a fuzzy, ever-changing multiplicity of a large variety of interrelated phenomena. ------------------------------------------------ However the (common ) whole of each level is coreless to its parts , like water for oxygen and hydrogen, or the organ for its cells. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What "common whole"? Is there some reifying glue? ---------------------------------------------- I miss the reason to specify each whole as being only conventional truth instead of reality. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Where does a person begin and end precisely, and when? What is the essence that makes it a single thing? Does it last, i.e., remain the same, for any time at all? Doesn't it become other constantly? When hairs fall out, is "the person" now in pieces? This is all a matter of thinking, Dieter, of convention, not objective reality. ------------------------------------------------ H:( D: I haven't yet read much about this school to develop such sensibility .. but I may..) ----------------------------------------- HCW: I think it is an odd school that wants to be both "attic" and "anattic"! (Maybe "lunattic"! LOL!) D: well, when we analyse the living being as done by D.O. , the process of conditioned phenomena as a whole represent the person (but no core, no self to be found) -------------------------------------------- HCW: What is this "as a whole"? There is no whole. There are just phenomena that work well together. -------------------------------------------- . HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter P.S. : how about getting back to simply 'H' instead of HCW ( looks so analytical ;-) ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I adopted that because of the other Howard who joined the group a while ago. =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118628 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 10/12/2011 2:23:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: hi Howard, I'm not a fan of chemistry/physics analogies, but you might want to see what can be done for your poor chemist... i'm thinking about the arahant householder who is also 'unable to function "in the world"'. connie ========================== You've hit on an area with respect to which I do not find myself in agreement with Theravadin orthodoxy. I believe that an arahant householder would function quite beautifully. I believe, in fact, that an arahant would function magnificently in all contexts. The Buddha who called himself "the arahant" wasn't lacking in basic competence. Increased wisdom doesn't turn a person into a bumbler. ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118629 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasika as external philofillet Hi Nina and Sarah > N: Sarah is busy preparing for the journey. The aayatans is the > context. We discussed this before and it is not easy to understand. Ph: Thank you both for your answers here and to several other posts. As usual, most is clear. I might return to this topic of cetasika as external, not because I want to overturn the teaching, but because I want to better understand nama. I am interested in better understanding cetasika as assistant in knowing, and cetasika as mind object, just as I am interested in the 5 and 7 rupa. "Sarah's journey." It sounds like one of the young adult novels I used to like reading a lot and still aspire to write, on occasion. I hope it is a journey to a surfing destination rather than a journey through painful, adolescent self-discovery. Metta, Phil #118630 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:23 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. > > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > Of course! Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the BUddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in this posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) frontier mentality about DHamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived int he conventional and paramattha. So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. I will go to your end gag: > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Metta, Phil p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. #118631 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:22 pm Subject: Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, I heard you and others discussing sanna, sanna marks some things in particular, and it is accumulated from lifetime to lifetime. You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are intrinsically unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? Metta, Phil #118632 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again Rob E I re-read my post > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. Metta, Phil #118633 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. > This reminds me, when the re-birth citta has only one kusala root (adosa, I guess?) the birth is in the human realm, but the person is born handicapped. Maybe as a parallel we can say that forming our understanding of Dhamma rooted in only one of the tipitika leads to disabled understanding. I need to study suttas more, back to SN 22 and SN 35 for awhile... metta, phil #118634 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 0:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > . I believe that an arahant householder > would function quite beautifully. I believe, in fact, that an > arahant would > function magnificently in all contexts. ------ N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. I agree with Howard that the arahat functions beautifully in the word, with the greatest compassion and mettaa. He is inclined to help all people to understand the Dhamma. ------- Nina. #118635 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 13-okt-2011, om 4:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said > it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant > sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are > intrinsically > unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? ------ N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is akusala vipaakacitta. Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of visible object, as being different from seeing. ----- Nina. #118636 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: different accumulations. was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Phil and Rob E, Op 13-okt-2011, om 9:01 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that > it is all about self. > > > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost > entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma > that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the > start. ------- N: But all of us are full of self. That is, so long as we have not become sotaapanna. I think that we should not doubt other people's sincerity on this list. We are discussing, considering the Dhamma as best as we are able to. And also writing about Dhamma reminds us and helps us to consider more. It does not matter if we have different opinions. We have accumulated different tendencies, we have different backgrounds and this should not be a hindrance to discuss Dhamma together. ------ Nina. #118637 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:36 am Subject: The Power of Insight! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Power of Insight Purifies Mind! In what sense is insight a power? Understanding impermanence, it is not disappointed by expecting endurance! Knowing suffering, it is not excited, even when experiencing sense pleasure! Comprehending no-self, it is not deceived by an apparent, yet imaginary ego! Apprehending disgust, it is not obsessed by the delight of the adored object. Appreciating disillusion, it does not get addicted, when influenced by greed.. Recognizing ceasing as peace, it does not get hooked on any form of arising.. Realizing relinquishment, it is not perturbed by any panic induced by clinging! Insight does neither waver, nor vacillate, nor hesitate, as if in ignorance... Nor is it indecisive, as if in doubt or uncertainty. Thus is insight a Power...!!! Vism 703 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #118638 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/13/2011 4:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. ================================= Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118639 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: “Milinda’s Questions”, Seventh Division, no 2, explains clearly that a layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk must attain parinibbćna on that very day. The text states: “Revered Nćgasena, you say: ‘There are two bourns, not another, for a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day he goes forth (into homelessness) or he attains final nibbćna. That day is not able to pass (without one or other of these events taking place). If revered Nćgasena, he obtain neither a teacher nor a preceptor nor a bowl and robe on that day, could that arahant go forth of himself, or could he let the day pass? Or if some other arahant of psychic power arrived could he let him go forth? Or would he attain final nibbćna?” “An arahant, sire, cannot go forth of oneself. On going forth of oneself one falls into theft. Nor could he let the day pass. Whether another arahant arrived or not, he would attain final nibbćna that very day.” “Well then, revered Nćgasena, the peaceful state of arahantship is given up if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried away.” “Unequal , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the lifespan and protects the life of all beings yet carries away the life of him whose stomach is out of order and who has a sluggish and weak digestion, because it is not properly digested. This, sire, is not a defect in the food, this is a defect in the stomach, namely a weakness in its heat. Even so, sire, the attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. Or, sire, as a heavy stone may be put on top of a small stalk of grass which in its weakness is broken and collapses, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahanship (but) being unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness) either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. Or, sire, as a man who is feeble and weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and to ruin the moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and is unable to sustain the authority, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness), and for that reason he either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day.” “It is good, revered Nćgasena; so it is, therefore do I accept it.” ------- As to 3: not in the suttas. As to 1: I am not familiar enough with the history of the Sangha. We have to study the Vinaya. The reason why: Even the anaagaami cannot live in a house anymore, he does not cling to sense objects. Let alone the arahat. Laylife is incompatible with the life of an arahat. It is true that the monk's lifestyle is the style of the arahat. He should strive for arahatship. He will not get food for himself, but is dependent on what is given to him by laymen. This is actually the reason for all the many prescripts the Buddha gave to the monks. No attachment to anything at all, no wishes, no expectations. The monk's deportment: there should not be anything in his deportment motivated by lobha. His way of walking, the way he wears his robes, the way he is looking ahead, a plough length ahead, not staring at people. Kh Sujin said that the difference between the life of a layfollower and a monk is as the difference between heaven and earth. Having become a monk is like a new birth. This helps us to understand what arahatship means, we can hardly fathom this. But eventually it can be reached in following the right Path. The beginning: awareness and understanding of the reality appearing now. ------- Nina. #118640 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:09 am Subject: the Black Curtain, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Kh Sujin: Develop understanding by knowing when sati arises and when there is no sati. When sati does not arise it is impossible to know what sati is by thinking about it, but when it arises one knows instantly the difference between the moments without sati and with sati. When touching, hardness may appear and one thinks about it as something all the time. If sati arises and it is directly aware of a reality there can be detachment little by little. There can never be detachment when there is an idea of self. Pa~n~naa understands a reality and at the same time it becomes detached from it. Through awareness one can know the characteristic of wrong view when it appears. We all have wrong view and when there is awareness it is evident that there is clinging to the self. Even when hardness appears it is still “I”; when heat appears it is me, seeing is mine. Pa~n~naa can eliminate the idea of self, by realizing that only an element appears, only a reality. N: When I worry about Lodewijk’s health and you say that it is only naama, it feels like a cold shower. Kh S: But it is the truth. We know a great deal in theory but this is not direct awareness of realities. The purpose is not to stop worrying or thinking of him, but understanding any moment as it is. N: One does not know the characteristic of worry before reaching the first stage of insight which is knowing the difference between naama and ruupa. Kh S: You cling to knowing the difference between naama and ruupa and this hinders instantly. One knows that lobha is there and lobha always hinders. It is like a black curtain that conceals realities. When one talks about worry and is wondering how there can be understanding of naama and ruupa, what kind of citta is there? There is always ignorance of lobha, lobha does not appear as an ennemy. We all have worry, but right understanding has to understand it as a reality. We cling to awareness, but if we do not mind whatever appears we go across the first hindrance which is clinging. We always want something, if not sensuous objects, we want more wisdom, more sati. We can know the way to reach the goal, and if we do not understand this we go wrong and we can never escape the cycle of birth and death. We live in the ocean of concepts. ******* Nina. #118641 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, > ------ > N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who > explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a > dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is > akusala vipaakacitta. Ph: Interesting. > Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or > unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing > that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is > akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot > of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or > dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the > sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. > Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of > visible object, as being different from seeing. > ----- Ph: Right, that is what is important. Charactersitics of dhammas. But still interesting to know. Thank you also for the post to Rob E and me. A silly series of posts by me, per accumulations of dosa, moha, mana etc. Understanding and abstention from wrong speech conditioned by understandaing, they are accumulating too, but much more gradually. How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) Metta, Phil #118642 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 9-sep-2011, om 2:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > Ph: . And of the dhammas that are object of awareness as nimitta, > the reason there is not direct awareness of them before they are > nimitta is because the process of sense door to mind door is so > fast, like drops of water going through two sheets of onion paper? > ------- N: The explanation of sa"nkhaara nimitta is a reminder that dhammas are arising and falling away so fast. But as to awareness, no need to think of nimitta or wonder, when is it nimitta? Characteristcs have to be known, that is the main point. ------ > > Ph: Even for Ariyans I imagine that there is not always direct > awarness of sense door objects before mind door processes, right? > They wouldn't be able to function in the world. > ------ N: There is direct awareness, no thinking of which process etc. Ariyans also think of situations and persons, but not with wrong view. They function better in the world than non-ariyans. They are more concerned with the wellfare of others instead of thinking of themselves. ------- > > Ph: Even the one who became arahat when he saw "teeth" or "bones" > walking by, I forget which, had mind door processes to see teeth or > bones rather than colour. "In the seen there will be only the > seen", but in that case there must have been more than that.... > ------ N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. Tissa was not interested in the woman he met, not staring at her, but he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. He developed insight up to the stage of arahatship. ------ Nina. #118643 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:19 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: I know generally about these types of dukkha, but very much appreciate the concise and clear summary above. It is good to remember that even kusala dhammas are dukkha. That is easy to forget, isn't it? > .... > S: Yes. That's why I think "stress" is misleading as a translation of dukkha. Kusala dhammas are inherently unsatisfactory because they are impermanent, but "stressful"? I don't think so. I see what you mean; but I take it, when translated that way, that even kusala dhammas are "stressful" through being impermanent because citta clings to the dhamma and there is pain when it fades or is taken away. Then craving for kusala dhammas is also stressful. So I think their impermanence does cause stress, in that way of looking at it. I think that saying they are "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" because of their impermanence is also true. And it would also be true to say that the inability to control them and make them be there on command is also a source of stress. I remember Buddha saying in some suttas that if dhammas were a part of self, we could make them come on command, do what we want, etc. And that it proved they were not a part of self that they were out of our control. And this is true of all the kandhas. We can't control thoughts or feelings either, and I can see how seeing this directly would cause detachment from dhammas that are not really either part of self, satisfying, lasting or controllable. ... > > > (btw, I appreciate your interest in this regard and your discussions with Scott and others. Also loved the "knitting thread" between you and Ken H:-))) > > > > :-) That was fun - unlike the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries offered by Dr. Scott. [just kidding......] > ... > S: :-) Well, even all "the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries" come down to moments of seeing of visible object, thinking, aversion, wise considering and so on. Just more dhammas, no Dr Scott in actuality - just our fantasies about him in his white coat inflicting torture with his scalpel and other instruments!! Yes, it is a scary fantasy. Don't want to see that movie again. Make the bad doctor go away....! ;-( > Always back to the present moment.... > ... yes. It's always better than the "fantasy" of what is happening. Real dukkha is better than spooky make-believe dukkha... > > That's a good point. I certainly get a good workout every time I come around! > .... > S: We all benefit from you workouts too, so keep them up! I appreciate that very much. You have always been very encouraging of my trouble-making -- hope it's not too annoying to the residents. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118644 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi again I wrote: -How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) > Related to this, I just heard an interesting point from A. Sujin: "Whenever there is more and more awareness, the awareness is of akusala.". So all that akusala is not an obstacle to be feared, it will more and more be object of awareness, conditioning more and more kusala. As long as we don't try to rush things, easier said than done. Metta, Phil #118645 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:09 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...All the supposed daily activities that one does with the body that are supposed to be acting on oneself or external objects in order to do this, that or the other task, or satisfy this, that or the other craving." > > Scott: In what sense are these real? > > R: "...I don't think it has partial reality. I think it has valid conventional reality and exists as such in its own right, until such time as perception is able to see the true constituent elements of experience. But I don't make a clean break between those two ways of perceiving..." > > Scott: You keep referring to something called 'conventional reality.' You keep referring to something called 'perception' and imply thereby that with a change in 'perception' comes a change in 'reality.' > > Do you think that vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer to two separate realities? I think we live in the realm of bodies and objects most of the time, most of our lives. So, real or unreal, the question is, what do we do with that situation, which constitutes most of our life-experience. Let's say that this reality is largely constituted of experiencing images and ideas that are imposed on citta and that obscure the namas and rupas that actually exist. My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth. If that is the case, then working with that reality rather than ignoring it is not nonsensical, but gradually works through the concepts and nimittas and moves towards experiencing the namas and rupas involved. You don't know what "perception" is? You say "something called perception" as if you've never heard of it before. Do we really need to make believe that all conventional terms are nonsensical and that you need them clarified? 'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced. Could you cut the nonsense responses when it is perfectly clear what I'm talking about? If you really have a problem with simple terms that stand for sensory or mental experience then please, carry on, or whatever. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118646 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., (Sarah), > > S: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > Scott: Note that Sarah clarifies 'panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana...' > > Still just pan~n~naa cetasika. Vipassanaa is not a separate cetasika. It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments. Just a note on "vipassana practice." Those who practice this are aware that they are not "practicing vipassana" but are practicing mindfulness, and that vipassana is the result that arises when it does. It is not something that anyone thinks they control. Sati is not controlled either, but one can "put mindfulness into the object of meditation" as Buddha says in the sutta, and then practice from there. More arguments to follow....etc.....etc..... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118647 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) philofillet Hi Nina and all > N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. > Tissa was not interested in the woman he met,y not staring at her, but > he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was > heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. Ph: Was ho meditation asubha, is that why he saw bones? Otherwise it seems bones cannot be "seen" only thought of. But I guess I asked that before, not to worry. Whatever appears, appears. Metta, Phil #118648 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:36 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. So is mine. And I'm overbooked with Scott's terse responses, as well as others. I ought to skip some of them but I don't so far. Maybe I'll start doing that. But if I do answer something I have to try to answer it, especially when there's no mutual understanding. Scott can "point me" in the direction of what he considers Dhamma facts as much as he likes, but I'm not a dog or a robot. I have to follow my own understanding, while still taking things in and considering them. Ha - I'd like to see *you* get successfully "pointed" anywhere by anyone. Although these days you seem to be voluntarily falling into line. We'll see how long it lasts - good if it does! > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. It was a joke. And you were joking initially too. You can be grouchy if you like, but try to remember what the conversation was about. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. > > Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. It depends on what is being described. > You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. I didn't say that either. You can do whatever you like with the paramatha terms. I am trying to understand and explain things in ways that makes sense to me, and using the terms that seem appropriate. If that doesn't work for you, there's not much I can do about it. I do talk more precisely when I understand what I am talking about, or asking specific questions, and that's the way that is. My understanding may not always be perfect, and I will put things the best way I can. > "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. No, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't think of what I write as any kind of blather, or purely conceptual. You can think what you like though, and I'm sure you will express it as well. Anyway, it's general critique rather than substantive response to anything specific, as you've been doing lately, so what are you really doing other than blowing off steam and trying to get me to change my writing style? > > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. > > Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the Buddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" It's better than swallowing pre-digested jargon without any idea what is in front of one's face. > I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in his posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) I am. Where are you from? I know you're in Japan now anyway. I'm in the U.S., in Washington, D.C. > ...frontier mentality about Dhamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. You assume a lot from a phrase, don't you? I'm saying that what we have is our own experience, including our experience and undestanding of the Dhamma. If you think you're better off than that, well, good for you, I guess. > I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. No one's claiming anything exceptional. It seems like you and Scott and perhaps some others - who knows - think it is blasphemy if someone tries to think for themselves and actual try to understand what they are talking about. Being a good parrot and memorizing terms is not going to get you into Heaven. > Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Rely on what you like. I'm not convinced the commentarial view is in accord with the suttas, or that the extreme view of dhammas as completely bypassing a hallucinatory conventional world is correct. If you are sure that is the right model then by all means study away and quote the texts 24 hours a day. That's not why I'm here. > Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. I think there's a lot of interpretation going on around here that is not mine, and because it is shared it is presented at the true Dhamma. I can't take that as a given, because it does not seem right to me. That gives me an outsider role here, whether I like it or not. I can leave, or I can thrash it out, while learning more, but not swallowing anything whole. I'm not going to join the dhamma squad anytime soon. There are many things in the suttas that are flat-out contradicted by the dhammas-only view and it's taken for fact here. Those contradictions are explained as a true understanding of the correct view being applied to the sutta's "conventional language" but I don't think the Buddha needs to be overturned like that. That's my view, and if you think I shouldn't have my own view, you will have to continue to be cross about it. > >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. > > Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. Yuck yourself, buddy boy. ;-) > As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta My turn to say "yuck." Yeah, I'm a big fan of tough love. Can't wait til the slapping and punishments begin. Yippee! > by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived in the conventional and paramattha. That's what I call hair-splitting nonsense. Perception is no different than any other term for making sense contact with a sensory object. That is really ridiculous. > So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. Or perhaps some of what I say is worth discussing, even if you don't have the patience to read it. > And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. Didn't say that. Go see pt for "straw man" criteria. > I will go to your end gag: > > > > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. > > Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. That actualy wasn't mocking, although it was presented in a humorous form. I was talking in Abhidhamma terms as I understand them. If I don't choose to talk that way all the time, it's because I don't find that a source of reality when I discussing things as they are experienced. I might try to do that in certain types of discussions; others not. > This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. Your opinion. Again, not specific, just the same repeated general criticism without really discussing what I am talking about. > But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Any time. Drop me a line. > p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. I'll keep that in mind. On the other hand, if I don't agree with Scott, or if he is parsing me to death, I will respond accordingly. Thanks for your efforts to "reach" me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118649 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? Scott. #118650 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. Scott. #118651 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:32 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: ('D: this concert is indeed individual , the music played is kamma. ) ----------------------------------------- HCW:Well. now you're being poetic! ;-) Of course, by "in concert" I only mean "together and interactively".' D: not necessarily ;-) , consider an orchestra , the musicans are playing together and interactively a sinfony , this concert is truely individual isn't? -------------------------------------------- HCW:No, not truly. It is a collection of interrelated musicians and instruments and leader and music, etc, etc, functioning together. We view it, conceptually, and speak of it, as a unit. ------------------------------------------- H ( D: Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one?) ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. D: you mean nama and rupas function in concert , don't you? in the analogy : the musicans and their instruments (which provide the means to act) ---------------------------------------- HCW: I wasn't speaking of an orchestra then. I was speaking of a person/being. D: there is no function of mind and body in concert? (D:The khandas are reality (and so the musicans and their instruments) , and so are organs, cells, molecules , atoms or subatomic particles , but each on its own dimenson. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: You are dealing with levels of thinking and speech conventions - levels of conceptualization, not levels of reality. Actual reality is inexpressible. As soon as we say anything, we are dealing with convention and not reality. As Seung Sahn, the Korean Son master, used to say: "Open mouth already mistake!" ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- D: you mean 'as soon as we say anything' about reality ..? The sound of the Open Mouth is reality, isn't it? (D: I do not understand the reason , why taking the underlying interaction to be the only reality and calling the outcome conventional ? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Speaking of collections as individuals is convention. --------------------------------------------------- D: To think about a person or a certain music is a concept , but not the actual encounter or the listening in a concert hall. --------------------------------------------------- HCW:And what is experienced there? Sights, sounds, and emotions for the most part, all interrelated and mutually conditioning. --------------------------------------------------- H(D:The Buddha stated that by the get-together of all 5 parts ( dito in the Khanda grouping of 3 or even only 2 , when vinnana is understood to be nama) of a living being do we speak. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. So we speak. -------------------------------------------------- The interesting point is, that in no single part it is possible to find the property of the system , or function. Hence refering to the living being , the person or anticipated self , no substance can be found. I think it is a useful analogy. )--------------------------------------------- HCW: So long as we don't reify the collection, I have no problem with this D: that's the point! Is a living being a thing? Is the level we are able to analyse the only reality whereas the analyser isn't? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no analyzer, not thinker, no actor. ----------------------------------------------. D: ( And if , as we do not know the dimension(s) above our level , wouldn't we neglect that it does not mean that there is not? ). I think it is the suspicion of a core/substance you have a problem with . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What do you mean by 'core' other than identity? There is no core, self, identity, or "thingness" to a person, for what we call a person is nothing other than a fuzzy, ever-changing multiplicity of a large variety of interrelated phenomena. ------------------------------------------------ However the (common ) whole of each level is coreless to its parts , like water for oxygen and hydrogen, or the organ for its cells. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What "common whole"? Is there some reifying glue?--------------------------------------------- D: yes a sort of which e.g. makes water , instead of oxygen and hydrogen in interrelation (D: I miss the reason to specify each whole as being only conventional truth instead of reality.) --------------------------------------------- HCW: Where does a person begin and end precisely, and when? What is the essence that makes it a single thing? Does it last, i.e., remain the same, for any time at all? Doesn't it become other constantly? When hairs fall out, is "the person" now in pieces? This is all a matter of thinking, Dieter, of convention, not objective reality. ------------------------------------------------ D: D.O. from birth to death , the essence the functioning process , which as a whole describes the person, the living being H:( D: I haven't yet read much about this school to develop such sensibility .. but I may..) ----------------------------------------- HCW: I think it is an odd school that wants to be both "attic" and "anattic"! (Maybe "lunattic"! LOL!) D: well, when we analyse the living being as done by D.O. , the process of conditioned phenomena as a whole represent the person (but no core, no self to be found) -------------------------------------------- HCW: What is this "as a whole"? There is no whole. There are just phenomena that work well together. ------------------------------------------- D: an individual whole - the living being is more than the collection of conditioned (kandha) phenomenas. . HCW: Well, Dieter, it's coming down to you saying "yes" and me saying "no"! ;-) D: yup , obviously we view that differently .. so far ;-) HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #118652 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118653 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - Apologies for my missing the salutation in my reply to you. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:36:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #118654 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:05 am Subject: Concept of citta doesn't arise, fall and has no characteristics? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Concepts are said not to have characteristics. What about concepts of the real by means of the real? vijjamanena vijjamanapannatti Whenever we talk about citta, cetasika, rupa, etc, these are supposed to be real, but we use concepts. So does this mean that concept of citta, cetasika and rupa do not have characteristics, do not arise and cease? http://books.google.ca/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&pg=PA328&dq=%22+%22eye-consciousnes\ s%22+is+a+concept+of+the+real+by+means+of+%22&hl=en&ei=aRmXTt76MquMigK8sbHRDQ&sa\ =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20%22\ eye-consciousness%22%20is%20a%20concept%20of%20the%20real%20by%20means%20of%20%2\ 2&f=false With best wishes, Alex #118655 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - I'm replying only to a bit of your post, for the rest of the material seems to have been pretty well hashed out between us in earlier posts, and we clearly differ on it. In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:32:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) =============================== The Buddha didn't say "simply," but I believe the point of his definition was to point to what is essential in the matter, the volition, ruling out more than volition in what is covered by 'kamma', most specifically excluding any fatalistic connotation and the actions (kamma-patha) that implement it. So, yes, "simply volition". With metta, Howard P. S. I agree with you that intention/volition is a major "big deal"!! Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118656 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:56 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. > > R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." > > Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. Never said that. What are you getting that from? Whatever we experience is in a given moment, one moment at a time. > How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? I have no idea what you are driving at or talking about. You seem to be picking out words and phrases you don't like, and asking unrelated questions, or picking apart things I say and making unrelated claims about them. If something is perceived, it is then the object of citta at that moment, so it is the object of attention at that moment, so it is the object for mindfulness practice at that moment. That would be rupa of one kind or another, or nama. I don't see the problem, or what you're asking or challenging or whatever it is. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118657 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:58 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. I would not know how to grab that quote at the moment. I'll hunt around, and if I find it, I'll let you know. It's a quote that was discussed here with Sarah and others; it's not unfamiliar or obscure. But true enough, the quote might not match my paraphrase exactly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118658 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." > > Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. What is vipassana-nana? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118659 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:35 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Nina, et al Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." Thanks... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <....> Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? <...> #118630 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:23 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. > > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > Of course! Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the BUddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in this posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) frontier mentality about DHamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived int he conventional and paramattha. So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. I will go to your end gag: > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Metta, Phil p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. #118631 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:22 pm Subject: Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, I heard you and others discussing sanna, sanna marks some things in particular, and it is accumulated from lifetime to lifetime. You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are intrinsically unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? Metta, Phil #118632 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again Rob E I re-read my post > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. Metta, Phil #118633 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. > This reminds me, when the re-birth citta has only one kusala root (adosa, I guess?) the birth is in the human realm, but the person is born handicapped. Maybe as a parallel we can say that forming our understanding of Dhamma rooted in only one of the tipitika leads to disabled understanding. I need to study suttas more, back to SN 22 and SN 35 for awhile... metta, phil #118634 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 0:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > . I believe that an arahant householder > would function quite beautifully. I believe, in fact, that an > arahant would > function magnificently in all contexts. ------ N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. I agree with Howard that the arahat functions beautifully in the word, with the greatest compassion and mettaa. He is inclined to help all people to understand the Dhamma. ------- Nina. #118635 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 13-okt-2011, om 4:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said > it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant > sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are > intrinsically > unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? ------ N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is akusala vipaakacitta. Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of visible object, as being different from seeing. ----- Nina. #118636 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: different accumulations. was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Phil and Rob E, Op 13-okt-2011, om 9:01 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that > it is all about self. > > > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost > entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma > that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the > start. ------- N: But all of us are full of self. That is, so long as we have not become sotaapanna. I think that we should not doubt other people's sincerity on this list. We are discussing, considering the Dhamma as best as we are able to. And also writing about Dhamma reminds us and helps us to consider more. It does not matter if we have different opinions. We have accumulated different tendencies, we have different backgrounds and this should not be a hindrance to discuss Dhamma together. ------ Nina. #118637 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:36 am Subject: The Power of Insight! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Power of Insight Purifies Mind! In what sense is insight a power? Understanding impermanence, it is not disappointed by expecting endurance! Knowing suffering, it is not excited, even when experiencing sense pleasure! Comprehending no-self, it is not deceived by an apparent, yet imaginary ego! Apprehending disgust, it is not obsessed by the delight of the adored object. Appreciating disillusion, it does not get addicted, when influenced by greed.. Recognizing ceasing as peace, it does not get hooked on any form of arising.. Realizing relinquishment, it is not perturbed by any panic induced by clinging! Insight does neither waver, nor vacillate, nor hesitate, as if in ignorance... Nor is it indecisive, as if in doubt or uncertainty. Thus is insight a Power...!!! Vism 703 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #118638 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/13/2011 4:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. ================================= Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118639 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: “Milinda’s Questions”, Seventh Division, no 2, explains clearly that a layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk must attain parinibbćna on that very day. The text states: “Revered Nćgasena, you say: ‘There are two bourns, not another, for a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day he goes forth (into homelessness) or he attains final nibbćna. That day is not able to pass (without one or other of these events taking place). If revered Nćgasena, he obtain neither a teacher nor a preceptor nor a bowl and robe on that day, could that arahant go forth of himself, or could he let the day pass? Or if some other arahant of psychic power arrived could he let him go forth? Or would he attain final nibbćna?” “An arahant, sire, cannot go forth of oneself. On going forth of oneself one falls into theft. Nor could he let the day pass. Whether another arahant arrived or not, he would attain final nibbćna that very day.” “Well then, revered Nćgasena, the peaceful state of arahantship is given up if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried away.” “Unequal , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the lifespan and protects the life of all beings yet carries away the life of him whose stomach is out of order and who has a sluggish and weak digestion, because it is not properly digested. This, sire, is not a defect in the food, this is a defect in the stomach, namely a weakness in its heat. Even so, sire, the attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. Or, sire, as a heavy stone may be put on top of a small stalk of grass which in its weakness is broken and collapses, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahanship (but) being unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness) either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. Or, sire, as a man who is feeble and weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and to ruin the moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and is unable to sustain the authority, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness), and for that reason he either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day.” “It is good, revered Nćgasena; so it is, therefore do I accept it.” ------- As to 3: not in the suttas. As to 1: I am not familiar enough with the history of the Sangha. We have to study the Vinaya. The reason why: Even the anaagaami cannot live in a house anymore, he does not cling to sense objects. Let alone the arahat. Laylife is incompatible with the life of an arahat. It is true that the monk's lifestyle is the style of the arahat. He should strive for arahatship. He will not get food for himself, but is dependent on what is given to him by laymen. This is actually the reason for all the many prescripts the Buddha gave to the monks. No attachment to anything at all, no wishes, no expectations. The monk's deportment: there should not be anything in his deportment motivated by lobha. His way of walking, the way he wears his robes, the way he is looking ahead, a plough length ahead, not staring at people. Kh Sujin said that the difference between the life of a layfollower and a monk is as the difference between heaven and earth. Having become a monk is like a new birth. This helps us to understand what arahatship means, we can hardly fathom this. But eventually it can be reached in following the right Path. The beginning: awareness and understanding of the reality appearing now. ------- Nina. #118640 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:09 am Subject: the Black Curtain, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Kh Sujin: Develop understanding by knowing when sati arises and when there is no sati. When sati does not arise it is impossible to know what sati is by thinking about it, but when it arises one knows instantly the difference between the moments without sati and with sati. When touching, hardness may appear and one thinks about it as something all the time. If sati arises and it is directly aware of a reality there can be detachment little by little. There can never be detachment when there is an idea of self. Pa~n~naa understands a reality and at the same time it becomes detached from it. Through awareness one can know the characteristic of wrong view when it appears. We all have wrong view and when there is awareness it is evident that there is clinging to the self. Even when hardness appears it is still “I”; when heat appears it is me, seeing is mine. Pa~n~naa can eliminate the idea of self, by realizing that only an element appears, only a reality. N: When I worry about Lodewijk’s health and you say that it is only naama, it feels like a cold shower. Kh S: But it is the truth. We know a great deal in theory but this is not direct awareness of realities. The purpose is not to stop worrying or thinking of him, but understanding any moment as it is. N: One does not know the characteristic of worry before reaching the first stage of insight which is knowing the difference between naama and ruupa. Kh S: You cling to knowing the difference between naama and ruupa and this hinders instantly. One knows that lobha is there and lobha always hinders. It is like a black curtain that conceals realities. When one talks about worry and is wondering how there can be understanding of naama and ruupa, what kind of citta is there? There is always ignorance of lobha, lobha does not appear as an ennemy. We all have worry, but right understanding has to understand it as a reality. We cling to awareness, but if we do not mind whatever appears we go across the first hindrance which is clinging. We always want something, if not sensuous objects, we want more wisdom, more sati. We can know the way to reach the goal, and if we do not understand this we go wrong and we can never escape the cycle of birth and death. We live in the ocean of concepts. ******* Nina. #118641 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, > ------ > N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who > explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a > dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is > akusala vipaakacitta. Ph: Interesting. > Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or > unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing > that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is > akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot > of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or > dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the > sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. > Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of > visible object, as being different from seeing. > ----- Ph: Right, that is what is important. Charactersitics of dhammas. But still interesting to know. Thank you also for the post to Rob E and me. A silly series of posts by me, per accumulations of dosa, moha, mana etc. Understanding and abstention from wrong speech conditioned by understandaing, they are accumulating too, but much more gradually. How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) Metta, Phil #118642 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 9-sep-2011, om 2:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > Ph: . And of the dhammas that are object of awareness as nimitta, > the reason there is not direct awareness of them before they are > nimitta is because the process of sense door to mind door is so > fast, like drops of water going through two sheets of onion paper? > ------- N: The explanation of sa"nkhaara nimitta is a reminder that dhammas are arising and falling away so fast. But as to awareness, no need to think of nimitta or wonder, when is it nimitta? Characteristcs have to be known, that is the main point. ------ > > Ph: Even for Ariyans I imagine that there is not always direct > awarness of sense door objects before mind door processes, right? > They wouldn't be able to function in the world. > ------ N: There is direct awareness, no thinking of which process etc. Ariyans also think of situations and persons, but not with wrong view. They function better in the world than non-ariyans. They are more concerned with the wellfare of others instead of thinking of themselves. ------- > > Ph: Even the one who became arahat when he saw "teeth" or "bones" > walking by, I forget which, had mind door processes to see teeth or > bones rather than colour. "In the seen there will be only the > seen", but in that case there must have been more than that.... > ------ N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. Tissa was not interested in the woman he met, not staring at her, but he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. He developed insight up to the stage of arahatship. ------ Nina. #118643 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:19 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: I know generally about these types of dukkha, but very much appreciate the concise and clear summary above. It is good to remember that even kusala dhammas are dukkha. That is easy to forget, isn't it? > .... > S: Yes. That's why I think "stress" is misleading as a translation of dukkha. Kusala dhammas are inherently unsatisfactory because they are impermanent, but "stressful"? I don't think so. I see what you mean; but I take it, when translated that way, that even kusala dhammas are "stressful" through being impermanent because citta clings to the dhamma and there is pain when it fades or is taken away. Then craving for kusala dhammas is also stressful. So I think their impermanence does cause stress, in that way of looking at it. I think that saying they are "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" because of their impermanence is also true. And it would also be true to say that the inability to control them and make them be there on command is also a source of stress. I remember Buddha saying in some suttas that if dhammas were a part of self, we could make them come on command, do what we want, etc. And that it proved they were not a part of self that they were out of our control. And this is true of all the kandhas. We can't control thoughts or feelings either, and I can see how seeing this directly would cause detachment from dhammas that are not really either part of self, satisfying, lasting or controllable. ... > > > (btw, I appreciate your interest in this regard and your discussions with Scott and others. Also loved the "knitting thread" between you and Ken H:-))) > > > > :-) That was fun - unlike the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries offered by Dr. Scott. [just kidding......] > ... > S: :-) Well, even all "the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries" come down to moments of seeing of visible object, thinking, aversion, wise considering and so on. Just more dhammas, no Dr Scott in actuality - just our fantasies about him in his white coat inflicting torture with his scalpel and other instruments!! Yes, it is a scary fantasy. Don't want to see that movie again. Make the bad doctor go away....! ;-( > Always back to the present moment.... > ... yes. It's always better than the "fantasy" of what is happening. Real dukkha is better than spooky make-believe dukkha... > > That's a good point. I certainly get a good workout every time I come around! > .... > S: We all benefit from you workouts too, so keep them up! I appreciate that very much. You have always been very encouraging of my trouble-making -- hope it's not too annoying to the residents. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118644 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi again I wrote: -How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) > Related to this, I just heard an interesting point from A. Sujin: "Whenever there is more and more awareness, the awareness is of akusala.". So all that akusala is not an obstacle to be feared, it will more and more be object of awareness, conditioning more and more kusala. As long as we don't try to rush things, easier said than done. Metta, Phil #118645 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:09 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...All the supposed daily activities that one does with the body that are supposed to be acting on oneself or external objects in order to do this, that or the other task, or satisfy this, that or the other craving." > > Scott: In what sense are these real? > > R: "...I don't think it has partial reality. I think it has valid conventional reality and exists as such in its own right, until such time as perception is able to see the true constituent elements of experience. But I don't make a clean break between those two ways of perceiving..." > > Scott: You keep referring to something called 'conventional reality.' You keep referring to something called 'perception' and imply thereby that with a change in 'perception' comes a change in 'reality.' > > Do you think that vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer to two separate realities? I think we live in the realm of bodies and objects most of the time, most of our lives. So, real or unreal, the question is, what do we do with that situation, which constitutes most of our life-experience. Let's say that this reality is largely constituted of experiencing images and ideas that are imposed on citta and that obscure the namas and rupas that actually exist. My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth. If that is the case, then working with that reality rather than ignoring it is not nonsensical, but gradually works through the concepts and nimittas and moves towards experiencing the namas and rupas involved. You don't know what "perception" is? You say "something called perception" as if you've never heard of it before. Do we really need to make believe that all conventional terms are nonsensical and that you need them clarified? 'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced. Could you cut the nonsense responses when it is perfectly clear what I'm talking about? If you really have a problem with simple terms that stand for sensory or mental experience then please, carry on, or whatever. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118646 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., (Sarah), > > S: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > Scott: Note that Sarah clarifies 'panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana...' > > Still just pan~n~naa cetasika. Vipassanaa is not a separate cetasika. It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments. Just a note on "vipassana practice." Those who practice this are aware that they are not "practicing vipassana" but are practicing mindfulness, and that vipassana is the result that arises when it does. It is not something that anyone thinks they control. Sati is not controlled either, but one can "put mindfulness into the object of meditation" as Buddha says in the sutta, and then practice from there. More arguments to follow....etc.....etc..... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118647 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) philofillet Hi Nina and all > N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. > Tissa was not interested in the woman he met,y not staring at her, but > he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was > heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. Ph: Was ho meditation asubha, is that why he saw bones? Otherwise it seems bones cannot be "seen" only thought of. But I guess I asked that before, not to worry. Whatever appears, appears. Metta, Phil #118648 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:36 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. So is mine. And I'm overbooked with Scott's terse responses, as well as others. I ought to skip some of them but I don't so far. Maybe I'll start doing that. But if I do answer something I have to try to answer it, especially when there's no mutual understanding. Scott can "point me" in the direction of what he considers Dhamma facts as much as he likes, but I'm not a dog or a robot. I have to follow my own understanding, while still taking things in and considering them. Ha - I'd like to see *you* get successfully "pointed" anywhere by anyone. Although these days you seem to be voluntarily falling into line. We'll see how long it lasts - good if it does! > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. It was a joke. And you were joking initially too. You can be grouchy if you like, but try to remember what the conversation was about. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. > > Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. It depends on what is being described. > You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. I didn't say that either. You can do whatever you like with the paramatha terms. I am trying to understand and explain things in ways that makes sense to me, and using the terms that seem appropriate. If that doesn't work for you, there's not much I can do about it. I do talk more precisely when I understand what I am talking about, or asking specific questions, and that's the way that is. My understanding may not always be perfect, and I will put things the best way I can. > "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. No, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't think of what I write as any kind of blather, or purely conceptual. You can think what you like though, and I'm sure you will express it as well. Anyway, it's general critique rather than substantive response to anything specific, as you've been doing lately, so what are you really doing other than blowing off steam and trying to get me to change my writing style? > > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. > > Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the Buddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" It's better than swallowing pre-digested jargon without any idea what is in front of one's face. > I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in his posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) I am. Where are you from? I know you're in Japan now anyway. I'm in the U.S., in Washington, D.C. > ...frontier mentality about Dhamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. You assume a lot from a phrase, don't you? I'm saying that what we have is our own experience, including our experience and undestanding of the Dhamma. If you think you're better off than that, well, good for you, I guess. > I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. No one's claiming anything exceptional. It seems like you and Scott and perhaps some others - who knows - think it is blasphemy if someone tries to think for themselves and actual try to understand what they are talking about. Being a good parrot and memorizing terms is not going to get you into Heaven. > Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Rely on what you like. I'm not convinced the commentarial view is in accord with the suttas, or that the extreme view of dhammas as completely bypassing a hallucinatory conventional world is correct. If you are sure that is the right model then by all means study away and quote the texts 24 hours a day. That's not why I'm here. > Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. I think there's a lot of interpretation going on around here that is not mine, and because it is shared it is presented at the true Dhamma. I can't take that as a given, because it does not seem right to me. That gives me an outsider role here, whether I like it or not. I can leave, or I can thrash it out, while learning more, but not swallowing anything whole. I'm not going to join the dhamma squad anytime soon. There are many things in the suttas that are flat-out contradicted by the dhammas-only view and it's taken for fact here. Those contradictions are explained as a true understanding of the correct view being applied to the sutta's "conventional language" but I don't think the Buddha needs to be overturned like that. That's my view, and if you think I shouldn't have my own view, you will have to continue to be cross about it. > >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. > > Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. Yuck yourself, buddy boy. ;-) > As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta My turn to say "yuck." Yeah, I'm a big fan of tough love. Can't wait til the slapping and punishments begin. Yippee! > by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived in the conventional and paramattha. That's what I call hair-splitting nonsense. Perception is no different than any other term for making sense contact with a sensory object. That is really ridiculous. > So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. Or perhaps some of what I say is worth discussing, even if you don't have the patience to read it. > And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. Didn't say that. Go see pt for "straw man" criteria. > I will go to your end gag: > > > > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. > > Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. That actualy wasn't mocking, although it was presented in a humorous form. I was talking in Abhidhamma terms as I understand them. If I don't choose to talk that way all the time, it's because I don't find that a source of reality when I discussing things as they are experienced. I might try to do that in certain types of discussions; others not. > This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. Your opinion. Again, not specific, just the same repeated general criticism without really discussing what I am talking about. > But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Any time. Drop me a line. > p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. I'll keep that in mind. On the other hand, if I don't agree with Scott, or if he is parsing me to death, I will respond accordingly. Thanks for your efforts to "reach" me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118649 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? Scott. #118650 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. Scott. #118651 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:32 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: ('D: this concert is indeed individual , the music played is kamma. ) ----------------------------------------- HCW:Well. now you're being poetic! ;-) Of course, by "in concert" I only mean "together and interactively".' D: not necessarily ;-) , consider an orchestra , the musicans are playing together and interactively a sinfony , this concert is truely individual isn't? -------------------------------------------- HCW:No, not truly. It is a collection of interrelated musicians and instruments and leader and music, etc, etc, functioning together. We view it, conceptually, and speak of it, as a unit. ------------------------------------------- H ( D: Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one?) ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. D: you mean nama and rupas function in concert , don't you? in the analogy : the musicans and their instruments (which provide the means to act) ---------------------------------------- HCW: I wasn't speaking of an orchestra then. I was speaking of a person/being. D: there is no function of mind and body in concert? (D:The khandas are reality (and so the musicans and their instruments) , and so are organs, cells, molecules , atoms or subatomic particles , but each on its own dimenson. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: You are dealing with levels of thinking and speech conventions - levels of conceptualization, not levels of reality. Actual reality is inexpressible. As soon as we say anything, we are dealing with convention and not reality. As Seung Sahn, the Korean Son master, used to say: "Open mouth already mistake!" ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- D: you mean 'as soon as we say anything' about reality ..? The sound of the Open Mouth is reality, isn't it? (D: I do not understand the reason , why taking the underlying interaction to be the only reality and calling the outcome conventional ? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Speaking of collections as individuals is convention. --------------------------------------------------- D: To think about a person or a certain music is a concept , but not the actual encounter or the listening in a concert hall. --------------------------------------------------- HCW:And what is experienced there? Sights, sounds, and emotions for the most part, all interrelated and mutually conditioning. --------------------------------------------------- H(D:The Buddha stated that by the get-together of all 5 parts ( dito in the Khanda grouping of 3 or even only 2 , when vinnana is understood to be nama) of a living being do we speak. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. So we speak. -------------------------------------------------- The interesting point is, that in no single part it is possible to find the property of the system , or function. Hence refering to the living being , the person or anticipated self , no substance can be found. I think it is a useful analogy. )--------------------------------------------- HCW: So long as we don't reify the collection, I have no problem with this D: that's the point! Is a living being a thing? Is the level we are able to analyse the only reality whereas the analyser isn't? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no analyzer, not thinker, no actor. ----------------------------------------------. D: ( And if , as we do not know the dimension(s) above our level , wouldn't we neglect that it does not mean that there is not? ). I think it is the suspicion of a core/substance you have a problem with . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What do you mean by 'core' other than identity? There is no core, self, identity, or "thingness" to a person, for what we call a person is nothing other than a fuzzy, ever-changing multiplicity of a large variety of interrelated phenomena. ------------------------------------------------ However the (common ) whole of each level is coreless to its parts , like water for oxygen and hydrogen, or the organ for its cells. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What "common whole"? Is there some reifying glue?--------------------------------------------- D: yes a sort of which e.g. makes water , instead of oxygen and hydrogen in interrelation (D: I miss the reason to specify each whole as being only conventional truth instead of reality.) --------------------------------------------- HCW: Where does a person begin and end precisely, and when? What is the essence that makes it a single thing? Does it last, i.e., remain the same, for any time at all? Doesn't it become other constantly? When hairs fall out, is "the person" now in pieces? This is all a matter of thinking, Dieter, of convention, not objective reality. ------------------------------------------------ D: D.O. from birth to death , the essence the functioning process , which as a whole describes the person, the living being H:( D: I haven't yet read much about this school to develop such sensibility .. but I may..) ----------------------------------------- HCW: I think it is an odd school that wants to be both "attic" and "anattic"! (Maybe "lunattic"! LOL!) D: well, when we analyse the living being as done by D.O. , the process of conditioned phenomena as a whole represent the person (but no core, no self to be found) -------------------------------------------- HCW: What is this "as a whole"? There is no whole. There are just phenomena that work well together. ------------------------------------------- D: an individual whole - the living being is more than the collection of conditioned (kandha) phenomenas. . HCW: Well, Dieter, it's coming down to you saying "yes" and me saying "no"! ;-) D: yup , obviously we view that differently .. so far ;-) HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #118652 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118653 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - Apologies for my missing the salutation in my reply to you. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:36:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #118654 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:05 am Subject: Concept of citta doesn't arise, fall and has no characteristics? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Concepts are said not to have characteristics. What about concepts of the real by means of the real? vijjamanena vijjamanapannatti Whenever we talk about citta, cetasika, rupa, etc, these are supposed to be real, but we use concepts. So does this mean that concept of citta, cetasika and rupa do not have characteristics, do not arise and cease? http://books.google.ca/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&pg=PA328&dq=%22+%22eye-consciousnes\ s%22+is+a+concept+of+the+real+by+means+of+%22&hl=en&ei=aRmXTt76MquMigK8sbHRDQ&sa\ =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20%22\ eye-consciousness%22%20is%20a%20concept%20of%20the%20real%20by%20means%20of%20%2\ 2&f=false With best wishes, Alex #118655 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - I'm replying only to a bit of your post, for the rest of the material seems to have been pretty well hashed out between us in earlier posts, and we clearly differ on it. In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:32:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) =============================== The Buddha didn't say "simply," but I believe the point of his definition was to point to what is essential in the matter, the volition, ruling out more than volition in what is covered by 'kamma', most specifically excluding any fatalistic connotation and the actions (kamma-patha) that implement it. So, yes, "simply volition". With metta, Howard P. S. I agree with you that intention/volition is a major "big deal"!! Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118656 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:56 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. > > R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." > > Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. Never said that. What are you getting that from? Whatever we experience is in a given moment, one moment at a time. > How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? I have no idea what you are driving at or talking about. You seem to be picking out words and phrases you don't like, and asking unrelated questions, or picking apart things I say and making unrelated claims about them. If something is perceived, it is then the object of citta at that moment, so it is the object of attention at that moment, so it is the object for mindfulness practice at that moment. That would be rupa of one kind or another, or nama. I don't see the problem, or what you're asking or challenging or whatever it is. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118657 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:58 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. I would not know how to grab that quote at the moment. I'll hunt around, and if I find it, I'll let you know. It's a quote that was discussed here with Sarah and others; it's not unfamiliar or obscure. But true enough, the quote might not match my paraphrase exactly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118658 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." > > Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. What is vipassana-nana? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118659 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:35 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Nina, et al Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." Thanks... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <....> Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? <...> #118630 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:23 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. > > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > Of course! Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the BUddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in this posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) frontier mentality about DHamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived int he conventional and paramattha. So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. I will go to your end gag: > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Metta, Phil p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. #118631 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:22 pm Subject: Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, I heard you and others discussing sanna, sanna marks some things in particular, and it is accumulated from lifetime to lifetime. You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are intrinsically unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? Metta, Phil #118632 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again Rob E I re-read my post > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. Metta, Phil #118633 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the start. > This reminds me, when the re-birth citta has only one kusala root (adosa, I guess?) the birth is in the human realm, but the person is born handicapped. Maybe as a parallel we can say that forming our understanding of Dhamma rooted in only one of the tipitika leads to disabled understanding. I need to study suttas more, back to SN 22 and SN 35 for awhile... metta, phil #118634 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 0:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > . I believe that an arahant householder > would function quite beautifully. I believe, in fact, that an > arahant would > function magnificently in all contexts. ------ N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. I agree with Howard that the arahat functions beautifully in the word, with the greatest compassion and mettaa. He is inclined to help all people to understand the Dhamma. ------- Nina. #118635 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 13-okt-2011, om 4:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > You said you like to see a "tokay, probably a lizard, and you said > it was akusala vipaka. I find that confusing, aren't pleasant > sights kusala vipaka? Are there some visual objects that are > intrinsically > unpleasant, therefore always akusala vipaka? ------ N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is akusala vipaakacitta. Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of visible object, as being different from seeing. ----- Nina. #118636 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: different accumulations. was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Phil and Rob E, Op 13-okt-2011, om 9:01 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that > it is all about self. > > > Ph: That was going way too far. As was saying your posts are almost > entirely blather. But I think it is true that opinions about Dhamma > that aren't grounded in Abhidhamma are badly handicapped from the > start. ------- N: But all of us are full of self. That is, so long as we have not become sotaapanna. I think that we should not doubt other people's sincerity on this list. We are discussing, considering the Dhamma as best as we are able to. And also writing about Dhamma reminds us and helps us to consider more. It does not matter if we have different opinions. We have accumulated different tendencies, we have different backgrounds and this should not be a hindrance to discuss Dhamma together. ------ Nina. #118637 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:36 am Subject: The Power of Insight! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Power of Insight Purifies Mind! In what sense is insight a power? Understanding impermanence, it is not disappointed by expecting endurance! Knowing suffering, it is not excited, even when experiencing sense pleasure! Comprehending no-self, it is not deceived by an apparent, yet imaginary ego! Apprehending disgust, it is not obsessed by the delight of the adored object. Appreciating disillusion, it does not get addicted, when influenced by greed.. Recognizing ceasing as peace, it does not get hooked on any form of arising.. Realizing relinquishment, it is not perturbed by any panic induced by clinging! Insight does neither waver, nor vacillate, nor hesitate, as if in ignorance... Nor is it indecisive, as if in doubt or uncertainty. Thus is insight a Power...!!! Vism 703 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #118638 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/13/2011 4:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Just a reminder that the person who attains arahatship cannot be a householder anymore. Either he dies that very day or he enters monkhood, as explained before. ================================= Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118639 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: “Milinda’s Questions”, Seventh Division, no 2, explains clearly that a layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk must attain parinibbćna on that very day. The text states: “Revered Nćgasena, you say: ‘There are two bourns, not another, for a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day he goes forth (into homelessness) or he attains final nibbćna. That day is not able to pass (without one or other of these events taking place). If revered Nćgasena, he obtain neither a teacher nor a preceptor nor a bowl and robe on that day, could that arahant go forth of himself, or could he let the day pass? Or if some other arahant of psychic power arrived could he let him go forth? Or would he attain final nibbćna?” “An arahant, sire, cannot go forth of oneself. On going forth of oneself one falls into theft. Nor could he let the day pass. Whether another arahant arrived or not, he would attain final nibbćna that very day.” “Well then, revered Nćgasena, the peaceful state of arahantship is given up if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried away.” “Unequal , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the lifespan and protects the life of all beings yet carries away the life of him whose stomach is out of order and who has a sluggish and weak digestion, because it is not properly digested. This, sire, is not a defect in the food, this is a defect in the stomach, namely a weakness in its heat. Even so, sire, the attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. Or, sire, as a heavy stone may be put on top of a small stalk of grass which in its weakness is broken and collapses, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahanship (but) being unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness) either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day. Or, sire, as a man who is feeble and weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and to ruin the moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and is unable to sustain the authority, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness), and for that reason he either goes forth or attains final nibbćna on that very day.” “It is good, revered Nćgasena; so it is, therefore do I accept it.” ------- As to 3: not in the suttas. As to 1: I am not familiar enough with the history of the Sangha. We have to study the Vinaya. The reason why: Even the anaagaami cannot live in a house anymore, he does not cling to sense objects. Let alone the arahat. Laylife is incompatible with the life of an arahat. It is true that the monk's lifestyle is the style of the arahat. He should strive for arahatship. He will not get food for himself, but is dependent on what is given to him by laymen. This is actually the reason for all the many prescripts the Buddha gave to the monks. No attachment to anything at all, no wishes, no expectations. The monk's deportment: there should not be anything in his deportment motivated by lobha. His way of walking, the way he wears his robes, the way he is looking ahead, a plough length ahead, not staring at people. Kh Sujin said that the difference between the life of a layfollower and a monk is as the difference between heaven and earth. Having become a monk is like a new birth. This helps us to understand what arahatship means, we can hardly fathom this. But eventually it can be reached in following the right Path. The beginning: awareness and understanding of the reality appearing now. ------- Nina. #118640 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:09 am Subject: the Black Curtain, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Kh Sujin: Develop understanding by knowing when sati arises and when there is no sati. When sati does not arise it is impossible to know what sati is by thinking about it, but when it arises one knows instantly the difference between the moments without sati and with sati. When touching, hardness may appear and one thinks about it as something all the time. If sati arises and it is directly aware of a reality there can be detachment little by little. There can never be detachment when there is an idea of self. Pa~n~naa understands a reality and at the same time it becomes detached from it. Through awareness one can know the characteristic of wrong view when it appears. We all have wrong view and when there is awareness it is evident that there is clinging to the self. Even when hardness appears it is still “I”; when heat appears it is me, seeing is mine. Pa~n~naa can eliminate the idea of self, by realizing that only an element appears, only a reality. N: When I worry about Lodewijk’s health and you say that it is only naama, it feels like a cold shower. Kh S: But it is the truth. We know a great deal in theory but this is not direct awareness of realities. The purpose is not to stop worrying or thinking of him, but understanding any moment as it is. N: One does not know the characteristic of worry before reaching the first stage of insight which is knowing the difference between naama and ruupa. Kh S: You cling to knowing the difference between naama and ruupa and this hinders instantly. One knows that lobha is there and lobha always hinders. It is like a black curtain that conceals realities. When one talks about worry and is wondering how there can be understanding of naama and ruupa, what kind of citta is there? There is always ignorance of lobha, lobha does not appear as an ennemy. We all have worry, but right understanding has to understand it as a reality. We cling to awareness, but if we do not mind whatever appears we go across the first hindrance which is clinging. We always want something, if not sensuous objects, we want more wisdom, more sati. We can know the way to reach the goal, and if we do not understand this we go wrong and we can never escape the cycle of birth and death. We live in the ocean of concepts. ******* Nina. #118641 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Nina, > ------ > N: I love dogs, and once I had a discussion with Kh Sujin who > explained: the dog's body is produced by akusala kamma, birth as a > dog is an unhappy rebirth. We see colour, but seeing in this case is > akusala vipaakacitta. Ph: Interesting. > Mostly we cannot know whether visual object is pleasant or > unpleasant. The commentary explained, as discussed before: the seeing > that is kusala vipaaka sees a pleasant object and the seeing that is > akusala vipaaka sees an unpleasant object. In the co there is a lot > of discussion about this subject, such as what most people like or > dislike, but the conclusion is that it depends on kamma whether the > sense-cognitions experience a pleasant or an unpleasant object. > Why should we find out? It is best to study the characteristic of > visible object, as being different from seeing. > ----- Ph: Right, that is what is important. Charactersitics of dhammas. But still interesting to know. Thank you also for the post to Rob E and me. A silly series of posts by me, per accumulations of dosa, moha, mana etc. Understanding and abstention from wrong speech conditioned by understandaing, they are accumulating too, but much more gradually. How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) Metta, Phil #118642 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 9-sep-2011, om 2:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > Ph: . And of the dhammas that are object of awareness as nimitta, > the reason there is not direct awareness of them before they are > nimitta is because the process of sense door to mind door is so > fast, like drops of water going through two sheets of onion paper? > ------- N: The explanation of sa"nkhaara nimitta is a reminder that dhammas are arising and falling away so fast. But as to awareness, no need to think of nimitta or wonder, when is it nimitta? Characteristcs have to be known, that is the main point. ------ > > Ph: Even for Ariyans I imagine that there is not always direct > awarness of sense door objects before mind door processes, right? > They wouldn't be able to function in the world. > ------ N: There is direct awareness, no thinking of which process etc. Ariyans also think of situations and persons, but not with wrong view. They function better in the world than non-ariyans. They are more concerned with the wellfare of others instead of thinking of themselves. ------- > > Ph: Even the one who became arahat when he saw "teeth" or "bones" > walking by, I forget which, had mind door processes to see teeth or > bones rather than colour. "In the seen there will be only the > seen", but in that case there must have been more than that.... > ------ N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. Tissa was not interested in the woman he met, not staring at her, but he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. He developed insight up to the stage of arahatship. ------ Nina. #118643 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:19 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: I know generally about these types of dukkha, but very much appreciate the concise and clear summary above. It is good to remember that even kusala dhammas are dukkha. That is easy to forget, isn't it? > .... > S: Yes. That's why I think "stress" is misleading as a translation of dukkha. Kusala dhammas are inherently unsatisfactory because they are impermanent, but "stressful"? I don't think so. I see what you mean; but I take it, when translated that way, that even kusala dhammas are "stressful" through being impermanent because citta clings to the dhamma and there is pain when it fades or is taken away. Then craving for kusala dhammas is also stressful. So I think their impermanence does cause stress, in that way of looking at it. I think that saying they are "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" because of their impermanence is also true. And it would also be true to say that the inability to control them and make them be there on command is also a source of stress. I remember Buddha saying in some suttas that if dhammas were a part of self, we could make them come on command, do what we want, etc. And that it proved they were not a part of self that they were out of our control. And this is true of all the kandhas. We can't control thoughts or feelings either, and I can see how seeing this directly would cause detachment from dhammas that are not really either part of self, satisfying, lasting or controllable. ... > > > (btw, I appreciate your interest in this regard and your discussions with Scott and others. Also loved the "knitting thread" between you and Ken H:-))) > > > > :-) That was fun - unlike the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries offered by Dr. Scott. [just kidding......] > ... > S: :-) Well, even all "the 20 some-odd micro-surgeries" come down to moments of seeing of visible object, thinking, aversion, wise considering and so on. Just more dhammas, no Dr Scott in actuality - just our fantasies about him in his white coat inflicting torture with his scalpel and other instruments!! Yes, it is a scary fantasy. Don't want to see that movie again. Make the bad doctor go away....! ;-( > Always back to the present moment.... > ... yes. It's always better than the "fantasy" of what is happening. Real dukkha is better than spooky make-believe dukkha... > > That's a good point. I certainly get a good workout every time I come around! > .... > S: We all benefit from you workouts too, so keep them up! I appreciate that very much. You have always been very encouraging of my trouble-making -- hope it's not too annoying to the residents. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118644 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi again I wrote: -How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) > Related to this, I just heard an interesting point from A. Sujin: "Whenever there is more and more awareness, the awareness is of akusala.". So all that akusala is not an obstacle to be feared, it will more and more be object of awareness, conditioning more and more kusala. As long as we don't try to rush things, easier said than done. Metta, Phil #118645 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:09 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...All the supposed daily activities that one does with the body that are supposed to be acting on oneself or external objects in order to do this, that or the other task, or satisfy this, that or the other craving." > > Scott: In what sense are these real? > > R: "...I don't think it has partial reality. I think it has valid conventional reality and exists as such in its own right, until such time as perception is able to see the true constituent elements of experience. But I don't make a clean break between those two ways of perceiving..." > > Scott: You keep referring to something called 'conventional reality.' You keep referring to something called 'perception' and imply thereby that with a change in 'perception' comes a change in 'reality.' > > Do you think that vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer to two separate realities? I think we live in the realm of bodies and objects most of the time, most of our lives. So, real or unreal, the question is, what do we do with that situation, which constitutes most of our life-experience. Let's say that this reality is largely constituted of experiencing images and ideas that are imposed on citta and that obscure the namas and rupas that actually exist. My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth. If that is the case, then working with that reality rather than ignoring it is not nonsensical, but gradually works through the concepts and nimittas and moves towards experiencing the namas and rupas involved. You don't know what "perception" is? You say "something called perception" as if you've never heard of it before. Do we really need to make believe that all conventional terms are nonsensical and that you need them clarified? 'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced. Could you cut the nonsense responses when it is perfectly clear what I'm talking about? If you really have a problem with simple terms that stand for sensory or mental experience then please, carry on, or whatever. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118646 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., (Sarah), > > S: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > Scott: Note that Sarah clarifies 'panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana...' > > Still just pan~n~naa cetasika. Vipassanaa is not a separate cetasika. It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments. Just a note on "vipassana practice." Those who practice this are aware that they are not "practicing vipassana" but are practicing mindfulness, and that vipassana is the result that arises when it does. It is not something that anyone thinks they control. Sati is not controlled either, but one can "put mindfulness into the object of meditation" as Buddha says in the sutta, and then practice from there. More arguments to follow....etc.....etc..... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118647 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) philofillet Hi Nina and all > N: No self in the seen, realizing visible object as it truly is. > Tissa was not interested in the woman he met,y not staring at her, but > he was intent on his meditation subject. There was sound that was > heard, there was visible object that was seen, but no person in it. Ph: Was ho meditation asubha, is that why he saw bones? Otherwise it seems bones cannot be "seen" only thought of. But I guess I asked that before, not to worry. Whatever appears, appears. Metta, Phil #118648 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:36 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > This is my back to work day, so may be in grouchy mode. I find your posts invariably affable, but also a lot of blather. As Nina said, she doesn't read through your long discussion with Scott (and you voluble responses to his excellent, terse questions that try again and again to point you back to the Dhamma facts) You have to understand that people's time is limited. So is mine. And I'm overbooked with Scott's terse responses, as well as others. I ought to skip some of them but I don't so far. Maybe I'll start doing that. But if I do answer something I have to try to answer it, especially when there's no mutual understanding. Scott can "point me" in the direction of what he considers Dhamma facts as much as he likes, but I'm not a dog or a robot. I have to follow my own understanding, while still taking things in and considering them. Ha - I'd like to see *you* get successfully "pointed" anywhere by anyone. Although these days you seem to be voluntarily falling into line. We'll see how long it lasts - good if it does! > > > Sure, but as soon as *you* talk about it, it becomes self. > > > > Of course! > > Ph: And yet you're comfortable to go on and on and on, aware that it is all about self. It was a joke. And you were joking initially too. You can be grouchy if you like, but try to remember what the conversation was about. > > > Seriously, as soon as we talk about our experiences, the cut and dry, objective description of dhamma processes such as our found in ADL are out the door, don't you think? > > > > Well, not necessarily. I have purposely not tried to be too exactly clinical, because I think that would be a mockery of the dhamma talk, since I would be making it sound like I experience those things directly. That would be even worse! But I use it in a slightly looser way to make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening. > > Ph: Nonsense. Talking in paramattha terms doesn't mean anyone is claiming to experience things directly in those terms. It depends on what is being described. > You are like Alex in a sense because for years you have read people patiently explain pariyatti, and yet all you seemingly have taken from it is a belief that if we write in paramattha terms we are claiming to experience in those terms directly. I didn't say that either. You can do whatever you like with the paramatha terms. I am trying to understand and explain things in ways that makes sense to me, and using the terms that seem appropriate. If that doesn't work for you, there's not much I can do about it. I do talk more precisely when I understand what I am talking about, or asking specific questions, and that's the way that is. My understanding may not always be perfect, and I will put things the best way I can. > "make clear what I am aiming at, or what I think is happening." You do see that it is likely to be a lot of brainy blather, with perhaps a few points of substance within. I know that is your way, and we talk about being natural, so fair enough, I guess. No, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't think of what I write as any kind of blather, or purely conceptual. You can think what you like though, and I'm sure you will express it as well. Anyway, it's general critique rather than substantive response to anything specific, as you've been doing lately, so what are you really doing other than blowing off steam and trying to get me to change my writing style? > > I do think we should be able to talk about "one's own" experiences and see them in clinical terms, because that is the task assigned to each of us. > > Ph: "Task assigned to each of us." Yuck! I really think the kalama sutta has spawned a generation that believes the Buddha was saying "Go West Young Man!" It's better than swallowing pre-digested jargon without any idea what is in front of one's face. > I like the "panna working at the border of the unknown" simile I came up with. I think you and to a lesser degree Howard (more text based Dhamma substance in his posts) and god knows how many others at places like Dhammawheel have a kind of American (whether you are American or not) I am. Where are you from? I know you're in Japan now anyway. I'm in the U.S., in Washington, D.C. > ...frontier mentality about Dhamma, boldly going where no man has gone before, and that that is justified by the kalama sutta. You assume a lot from a phrase, don't you? I'm saying that what we have is our own experience, including our experience and undestanding of the Dhamma. If you think you're better off than that, well, good for you, I guess. > I don't want to get lost in reading people's bold journeys into the unknown, we should be a lot more modest about what we can possibly understand compared to the great ones. No one's claiming anything exceptional. It seems like you and Scott and perhaps some others - who knows - think it is blasphemy if someone tries to think for themselves and actual try to understand what they are talking about. Being a good parrot and memorizing terms is not going to get you into Heaven. > Thus the wisdom of reliance on texts, and commentaries, even if we find some odd points in the latter. Rely on what you like. I'm not convinced the commentarial view is in accord with the suttas, or that the extreme view of dhammas as completely bypassing a hallucinatory conventional world is correct. If you are sure that is the right model then by all means study away and quote the texts 24 hours a day. That's not why I'm here. > Still on much safer ground than forging out on our own, which is the only possible result that I can see when intelligent Westerners (contemporary people, Asians as well, I guess, but there are cultural accumulations that lead to more submission to received teachings) interpret suttas and their meditation experience, reflections, etc. I think there's a lot of interpretation going on around here that is not mine, and because it is shared it is presented at the true Dhamma. I can't take that as a given, because it does not seem right to me. That gives me an outsider role here, whether I like it or not. I can leave, or I can thrash it out, while learning more, but not swallowing anything whole. I'm not going to join the dhamma squad anytime soon. There are many things in the suttas that are flat-out contradicted by the dhammas-only view and it's taken for fact here. Those contradictions are explained as a true understanding of the correct view being applied to the sutta's "conventional language" but I don't think the Buddha needs to be overturned like that. That's my view, and if you think I shouldn't have my own view, you will have to continue to be cross about it. > >Even though there is no self, we are paradoxically each personally responsible for understanding the dhammas that arise *for us.* There have been protests about this, but Buddha said very clearly that each individual's experience through the six doors, the vipaka that results from our kamma, are caused/experienced by that individual. No one would claim that I experience your vipaka, or vice versa, so there is an inherent individuation there. > > Ph: Yuck. Enough said. Don't Go West Young Man. Yuck yourself, buddy boy. ;-) > As usual, I won't make it to the end of one of your long posts. Scott may or may not be avoiding considering your points, I haven't read carefully enough to say, but I read his questions, and they are excellent, he may be providing some Tough Metta My turn to say "yuck." Yeah, I'm a big fan of tough love. Can't wait til the slapping and punishments begin. Yippee! > by patiently pointing you back and back to the texts, for example when he caught you talking about "perception" as though you were saying different realities could be perceived in the conventional and paramattha. That's what I call hair-splitting nonsense. Perception is no different than any other term for making sense contact with a sensory object. That is really ridiculous. > So I think his questions might be the best thing anyone has ever done for you here, Sarah in her infinite generosity and patience and niceness might actually be doing you a disservice by giving credence to your brainy blather, possibly. Or perhaps some of what I say is worth discussing, even if you don't have the patience to read it. > And your talk about needing twenty years to understand Abhidhamma enough to discuss in Abdhidhamma terms is ridiculous. Didn't say that. Go see pt for "straw man" criteria. > I will go to your end gag: > > > > Thanks, I appreciate that. I may keep trying a little bit longer. I want to see if Scott ever gets tired. Or to put it another way, I'd like to see whether the stream of cittas associated with the concept "Scott" ever ceases to have many moments of samma-viriya rising combined with samma-cetana, right effort and right understanding in order to continue to probe the namas associated with the concept of practice through the coordination of sanna, sati, vittakha and vicara. He he he. > > Ph: You see, you come closer to discussing in Abhidhamma terms, the home field of DSG, and then you mock it. That actualy wasn't mocking, although it was presented in a humorous form. I was talking in Abhidhamma terms as I understand them. If I don't choose to talk that way all the time, it's because I don't find that a source of reality when I discussing things as they are experienced. I might try to do that in certain types of discussions; others not. > This indicates that you will always go back to your own interpretations, your own delight in interpreting Dhamma, and it will just be mostly brainy blather. Your opinion. Again, not specific, just the same repeated general criticism without really discussing what I am talking about. > But I know you are a nice person and I would like to ask you offlist about yoga, I'm intersted in yoga these days. Any time. Drop me a line. > p.s remember, Scott's questions are excellent and may be the greatest possible kindness to you because Dhamma is the best possible gift according to the Buddha. So please appreciate those questions, tough dana, tough metta. I'll keep that in mind. On the other hand, if I don't agree with Scott, or if he is parsing me to death, I will respond accordingly. Thanks for your efforts to "reach" me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118649 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? Scott. #118650 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. Scott. #118651 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:32 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: ('D: this concert is indeed individual , the music played is kamma. ) ----------------------------------------- HCW:Well. now you're being poetic! ;-) Of course, by "in concert" I only mean "together and interactively".' D: not necessarily ;-) , consider an orchestra , the musicans are playing together and interactively a sinfony , this concert is truely individual isn't? -------------------------------------------- HCW:No, not truly. It is a collection of interrelated musicians and instruments and leader and music, etc, etc, functioning together. We view it, conceptually, and speak of it, as a unit. ------------------------------------------- H ( D: Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one?) ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. D: you mean nama and rupas function in concert , don't you? in the analogy : the musicans and their instruments (which provide the means to act) ---------------------------------------- HCW: I wasn't speaking of an orchestra then. I was speaking of a person/being. D: there is no function of mind and body in concert? (D:The khandas are reality (and so the musicans and their instruments) , and so are organs, cells, molecules , atoms or subatomic particles , but each on its own dimenson. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: You are dealing with levels of thinking and speech conventions - levels of conceptualization, not levels of reality. Actual reality is inexpressible. As soon as we say anything, we are dealing with convention and not reality. As Seung Sahn, the Korean Son master, used to say: "Open mouth already mistake!" ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- D: you mean 'as soon as we say anything' about reality ..? The sound of the Open Mouth is reality, isn't it? (D: I do not understand the reason , why taking the underlying interaction to be the only reality and calling the outcome conventional ? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Speaking of collections as individuals is convention. --------------------------------------------------- D: To think about a person or a certain music is a concept , but not the actual encounter or the listening in a concert hall. --------------------------------------------------- HCW:And what is experienced there? Sights, sounds, and emotions for the most part, all interrelated and mutually conditioning. --------------------------------------------------- H(D:The Buddha stated that by the get-together of all 5 parts ( dito in the Khanda grouping of 3 or even only 2 , when vinnana is understood to be nama) of a living being do we speak. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. So we speak. -------------------------------------------------- The interesting point is, that in no single part it is possible to find the property of the system , or function. Hence refering to the living being , the person or anticipated self , no substance can be found. I think it is a useful analogy. )--------------------------------------------- HCW: So long as we don't reify the collection, I have no problem with this D: that's the point! Is a living being a thing? Is the level we are able to analyse the only reality whereas the analyser isn't? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no analyzer, not thinker, no actor. ----------------------------------------------. D: ( And if , as we do not know the dimension(s) above our level , wouldn't we neglect that it does not mean that there is not? ). I think it is the suspicion of a core/substance you have a problem with . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What do you mean by 'core' other than identity? There is no core, self, identity, or "thingness" to a person, for what we call a person is nothing other than a fuzzy, ever-changing multiplicity of a large variety of interrelated phenomena. ------------------------------------------------ However the (common ) whole of each level is coreless to its parts , like water for oxygen and hydrogen, or the organ for its cells. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What "common whole"? Is there some reifying glue?--------------------------------------------- D: yes a sort of which e.g. makes water , instead of oxygen and hydrogen in interrelation (D: I miss the reason to specify each whole as being only conventional truth instead of reality.) --------------------------------------------- HCW: Where does a person begin and end precisely, and when? What is the essence that makes it a single thing? Does it last, i.e., remain the same, for any time at all? Doesn't it become other constantly? When hairs fall out, is "the person" now in pieces? This is all a matter of thinking, Dieter, of convention, not objective reality. ------------------------------------------------ D: D.O. from birth to death , the essence the functioning process , which as a whole describes the person, the living being H:( D: I haven't yet read much about this school to develop such sensibility .. but I may..) ----------------------------------------- HCW: I think it is an odd school that wants to be both "attic" and "anattic"! (Maybe "lunattic"! LOL!) D: well, when we analyse the living being as done by D.O. , the process of conditioned phenomena as a whole represent the person (but no core, no self to be found) -------------------------------------------- HCW: What is this "as a whole"? There is no whole. There are just phenomena that work well together. ------------------------------------------- D: an individual whole - the living being is more than the collection of conditioned (kandha) phenomenas. . HCW: Well, Dieter, it's coming down to you saying "yes" and me saying "no"! ;-) D: yup , obviously we view that differently .. so far ;-) HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #118652 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118653 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - Apologies for my missing the salutation in my reply to you. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:36:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: In a message dated 10/13/2011 9:02:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? > This is seems > critical to me as regards this assertion. > > 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter > the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? > > 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly > attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? ------- N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: ============================= Thank you for the thorough reply, Nina. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #118654 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:05 am Subject: Concept of citta doesn't arise, fall and has no characteristics? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Concepts are said not to have characteristics. What about concepts of the real by means of the real? vijjamanena vijjamanapannatti Whenever we talk about citta, cetasika, rupa, etc, these are supposed to be real, but we use concepts. So does this mean that concept of citta, cetasika and rupa do not have characteristics, do not arise and cease? http://books.google.ca/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&pg=PA328&dq=%22+%22eye-consciousnes\ s%22+is+a+concept+of+the+real+by+means+of+%22&hl=en&ei=aRmXTt76MquMigK8sbHRDQ&sa\ =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20%22\ eye-consciousness%22%20is%20a%20concept%20of%20the%20real%20by%20means%20of%20%2\ 2&f=false With best wishes, Alex #118655 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - I'm replying only to a bit of your post, for the rest of the material seems to have been pretty well hashed out between us in earlier posts, and we clearly differ on it. In a message dated 10/13/2011 12:32:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) =============================== The Buddha didn't say "simply," but I believe the point of his definition was to point to what is essential in the matter, the volition, ruling out more than volition in what is covered by 'kamma', most specifically excluding any fatalistic connotation and the actions (kamma-patha) that implement it. So, yes, "simply volition". With metta, Howard P. S. I agree with you that intention/volition is a major "big deal"!! Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118656 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:56 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. > > R: "...'Perception' is no different than saying that citta experiences visual object or sound object, in the case of a dhamma. In the case of a nimitta or concept then that is what is being perceived or experienced..." > > Scott: You reject momentariness, considering it to be conceptual. Never said that. What are you getting that from? Whatever we experience is in a given moment, one moment at a time. > How then is 'perception' part of your 'practice'? I have no idea what you are driving at or talking about. You seem to be picking out words and phrases you don't like, and asking unrelated questions, or picking apart things I say and making unrelated claims about them. If something is perceived, it is then the object of citta at that moment, so it is the object of attention at that moment, so it is the object for mindfulness practice at that moment. That would be rupa of one kind or another, or nama. I don't see the problem, or what you're asking or challenging or whatever it is. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118657 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:58 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Scott: True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities? > > R: "...My own view, which is expressed in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, is that this conceptual reality that we experience is a conglomerated, murky, distorted version of the actual namas and rupas that are arising, rather than a totally separate hallucination made separately out of whole cloth..." > > Scott: Quote please. This way one can determine whether the text you are citing is saying what you claim it does. I would not know how to grab that quote at the moment. I'll hunt around, and if I find it, I'll let you know. It's a quote that was discussed here with Sarah and others; it's not unfamiliar or obscure. But true enough, the quote might not match my paraphrase exactly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118658 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Sarah: "Panna is the same cetasika as samma ditthi, right understanding. There are two kinds of panna, a) panna in the development of samatha bhavana (the development of calm) and b) panna in the development of vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). In the development of vipassana bhavana, strictly speaking, panna is only referred to as vipassana (insight) at moments of vipassana ~nana, so when people refer to 'vipassana practice or 'vipassana meditation', it is an incorrect use of vipassana." > > R: "It is a separate function at that moment. I don't know whether that's a separate cetasika or not, but it's not the same as the general use of the term panna. I'd like to know what is going on with panna when it is not a moment of vipassana-nana, but it's clear that vipassana-nana is a specialized form at those moments, and that's why it's called...vipassana, and not panna at those moments..." > > Scott: 'Pa~n~naa' is not a 'term.' Pa~n~naa is a mental factor. A reality. The functional mental factor at moments known as 'vipassanaa-~naa.na' is pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa is what it is whenever it arises. What is vipassana-nana? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118659 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:35 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Nina, et al Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." Thanks... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <....> Nina, I have 3 questions about this: 1) After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? This is seems critical to me as regards this assertion. 2) Do the commentaries indicate *why* an arahant who does not enter the Sangha die that very day? How is that supposed to work exactly? 3) Is there a sutta in which the Buddha himself states that a newly attained arahant must enter the Sangha that very day or die? <...> #118660 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas dhammasaro Good friend Nina, et al Thank you for your response and clarification. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: vangorko@... <....> > N: As to no 2, I quote from my Dhamma Issues: > “Milinda’s Questions”, Seventh Division, no 2, explains clearly that > a layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk must > attain parinibbćna on that very day. The text states: > > “Revered Nćgasena, you say: ‘There are two bourns, not another, for a > householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day he > goes forth (into homelessness) or he attains final nibbćna. That day > is not able to pass (without one or other of these events taking > place). If revered Nćgasena, he obtain neither a teacher nor a > preceptor nor a bowl and robe on that day, could that arahant go > forth of himself, or could he let the day pass? Or if some other > arahant of psychic power arrived could he let him go forth? Or would > he attain final nibbćna?” > “An arahant, sire, cannot go forth of oneself. On going forth of > oneself one falls into theft. Nor could he let the day pass. Whether > another arahant arrived or not, he would attain final nibbćna that > very day.” > “Well then, revered Nćgasena, the peaceful state of arahantship is > given up if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried > away.” > “Unequal , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes > being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a > householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or attains > final nibbćna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, > sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely the > weakness of the attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the > lifespan and protects the life of all beings yet carries away the > life of him whose stomach is out of order and who has a sluggish and > weak digestion, because it is not properly digested. <....> #118661 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:25 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...putting the attention on something to train the concentration ...continuing to be aware of the object, and as one continues to put the attention on the object and be aware of it, the degree of detail and degree of awareness gradually increases....I do think that single-moment experiences arise without control, but not without influence. And the influence of activities that direct the attention or exercise volition towards a particular end, are part of the conditionality that causes particular sorts of cittas and dhammas to arise. Over time, increments of one or another result will accrue." > > Scott: Believing as you do in activities and experiences as realities, such a 'practice' - however meagre the description - makes sense. Conditionality, at least as it was set out in the Pa.t.thaana, is about dhammas which serve as conditions and are conditioned by dhammas. Neither 'self', nor 'activities', nor 'experience' are dhammas. That is one way of looking at it. I see dhammas as the true reality of those activities and objects, rather than a totally separate existence. And the rupas and namas that make up those activities have an affect on citta. If you look at it that way, it seems that it would unify the Buddha's language in sutta with the Abhidhamma, and take away this horrible split that you have between what he said and what you think he meant. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118662 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:00 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "What is vipassana-nana?" Scott: If you want to know, look it up in Useful Posts and make a bit of effort. Then, if you're still interested, let me know. Vipassana Nanas - see 'Stages of Insight' Scott. #118663 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, chuck (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/13/2011 3:13:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friend Howard, Nina, et al Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't believe I said that. (If I did it was an error of writing. In fact, I believe it is quite false to say that only males are arahants. I think, though, that it may be said somewhere in the Tipitaka that a buddha is always male. ---------------------------------------------- Thanks... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya Chuck ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118664 From: Vince Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Nina you wrote: > The reason why: Even the anaagaami cannot live in a house anymore, he > does not cling to sense objects. Let alone the arahat. Laylife is > incompatible with the life of an arahat. It is true that the monk's > lifestyle is the style of the arahat. and what say the texts about the way of paccekabuddhas? Can they reach arhanthood in solitude without be monks? (I mean eremites and related) best, Vince. #118665 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:59 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities?" Scott: An answer would be nice. As far as I know you could be an advocate of the R: "...Whatever we experience is in a given moment, one moment at a time...If something is perceived, it is then the object of citta at that moment, so it is the object of attention at that moment, so it is the object for mindfulness practice at that moment. That would be rupa of one kind or another, or nama..." Scott: This discussion is supposed to be looking at your 'practice' and it seems to me that it is unlikely that you are sitting there going 'now what is the object of citta' or something. You have a tendency to use terms from the Abhidhamma, which as far as I've understood you, you don't accept. You talk the talk about momentariness, for example, while it isn't at all clear to me that you actually accept this - except as you may have redefined the term for yourself. It should be no surprise to you that discussion can't proceed unless terms are at least mutually understood (agreement would likely to be too much to ask of you). So, if you don't wish to take the time to honestly respond to a request to give 'your' definition of a term, fine. I don't assume that you see it the way I do. Your tendency to absorb and use terms that don't mean the same thing that you say they do is partially to blame for this need. Scott. #118666 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Sorry, Rob: Me: "True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities?" Scott: "An answer would be nice. As far as I know you could be an advocate of the " Scott: This should have been finished. I wanted to say 'an advocate of the view that holds that the only reality is Nibbaana, the rest is false. Or something like that. Scott. #118667 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:05 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Correct, you did not. It was addressed to anyone to provide the Tipitaka reference. Unfortunately, an answer, "it is in the texts" is of no help to me. I am not allowed to state such to my ajahns. I have to provide the source in the Tipitaka. Warm thanks for your response... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <....> Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't believe I said that. (If I did it was an error of writing. In fact, I believe it is quite false to say that only males are arahants. I think, though, that it may be said somewhere in the Tipitaka that a buddha is always male. ---------------------------------------------- <...> #118668 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:44 am Subject: Calm and Insight! bhikkhu5 Friends: Calm (samatha) & Insight (vipassana): There are two principal kinds of mental development: 1: Development of mental tranquillity and calm (samatha-bhāvanā) culminating in the development of concentration (samādhi-bhāvanā) And! 2: Development of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) culminating in the development of understanding (paññā-bhāvanā). Both qualities: Calm and Insight , are essential & crucial for release! Tranquil Calm (samatha) is the pleasant, peaceful, yet lucid state of a settled mind acquired as a preliminary to meditative absorption. It blesses the meditator with 3 things: Happy life, happy rebirth, & a mental purity suitable for gaining progressive penetrating insight! Concentration is a necessary prerequisite for such cutting insight.. Why so? It removes distractions that veil the investigating vision! Insight is that which leads to entrance of the 4 stages of Nobility.. Why so? It irreversibly removes gross & latent mental hindrances! The term samādhi literally means ~being firmly put evenly together (sam + a+ dha) & is mental state focused on only one single object= cittassa-ekaggatā, which literally means ~ one-pointedness of mind. Any state of consciousness has a degree of mental concentration! One may distinguish these four stages or levels of concentration: 1: Momentary or transient concentration (khanika-samādhi), 2: Preliminary or preparing concentration (parikamma-samādhi), 3: Access or approaching concentration (upacāra-samādhi), 4: Absorption or attainment concentration (appanā-samādhi). Insight (vipassanā) is the penetrative understanding , gained by only direct meditative experience of the inherent transience , misery , & selflessness (anicca, dukkha, anattā) of all physical & mental states of existence all included in these 5 clusters (khandha) of clinging: form, feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness. Bhāvanā is derived from the causative form of the verbal root bhu, bhavati = to be, to become, causing to be, making come into being, the calling into existence of, the production of or development of. When applied to Mental Training this simply means Meditation... Simultaneous Calm and Insight! Photo: The Kawasakis <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! <....> #118669 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:05 am Subject: Only understanding truly helps philofillet Hi all, I like this from p.175 of Cetasikas: "Each kusala citta us accompanied ny alobha (and) adosa and it may be accompanied by right understanding or without it. Envy ( which was being treated at this point in the book) cannot be eradicated by sympathrtic joy, even if we have many monents of it. Only right understanding of nama and rupa can eventually eradicate envy." I think people here understand this already, so I would better post it elsewhere, but metta without right understanding can be kusala but it will just keep us in the round of rebirths. Understanding is the only way out, and it begings now with study of tge characteristics of any reality that arises, even if it is ornery and selfish and don't-give -a-damn about you, mister. Sometimes that is the reality that needs to be understood, as unBuddhist as it may feel.(Fortunately, when such moods are seen with understanding, there is a natural loosening of their hold.That is a good example of how the Buddha best looks after us, through understanding that eventually cures, not pain-relieving salves that just reduce exposure to the underlying, festering source of tge disease.) On this note, I heard an interesting exchange yesterday, someone was asking A Sujin about a lonely friend, she said of course only helping them to understand realities can really help them. What if they can't understand? Then they have to suffer from loneliness was the answer. That sounded pretty tough, but only understanding can really help people. Metta, Phil #118670 From: "azita" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? gazita2002 Hallo Phil Phil: I wrote: -How will kusala ever catch up with all the accumulating akusala, no need to think about that! :) > > > Related to this, I just heard an interesting point from A. Sujin: "Whenever there is more and more awareness, the awareness is of akusala.". So all that akusala is not an obstacle to be feared, it will more and more be object of awareness, conditioning more and more kusala. As long as we don't try to rush things, easier said than done. azita: jst a point, you wrote '...the awareness is of akusala' my comment: not jst akusala, cos whenever there is awareness it can/is aware of anything that appears. Perhaps you are being more specific by saying that the akusala can be known as it is a reality, therefore no need to panic bec we are having lots of akusala, agree? patience, courage and good cheer azita #118671 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:36 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: ...In the satipatthana sutta he goes through the four frames of reference and shows how to regard each one in order to develop the discernment to directly discern each type of paramatha dhamma in turn. Why would he go through all that if he didn't mean those steps as actual practices? > .... > S: Just daily life, present realities, for those addressed. Sitting under a tree in ancient India as a bhikkhu, putting on the cloak, walking, eating - anytime, any place, just the rupas of the body we find so important, feelings, cittas, other dhammas. Panna can arise anytime. But the Buddha came to show us how to take those occasions and make them part of the path. Those normal experiences don't represent anything but further ignorance unless the Dhamma is applied. The question is how to apply or understand that situation. > >And why would Buddhaghosa go into such explicit detail, breaking down these suttas into various explicit exercises to develop the capacities outlined in the suttas, if these were not understood as explicit practices... > .... > S: The buddha understood and explained all kinds of dhammas in all kinds of situations with the purpose of showing that there can be right understanding of any conditioned dhamma at all as anatta. Otherwise, no way to experience the unconditioned. So you don't think any of that systematic discussion was meant to be taken as a practice to be systematically studied and developed? It is just many different examples? > >R: Hope you have a good trip, Sarah. And of course, "no rush" on any replies. Ha ha - I haven't used up the fun from that yet. Be well! > ... > S: Thx Rob & all, in touch in a couple of days or so. I'll be following the "mutual eye-rolling" posts and any others:-)) I'll look forward to any comments that come along. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118672 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hi Azita Thanjs for bringing this up: > > azita: jst a point, you wrote '...the awareness is of akusala' I checked her exact words, it was "the object is awareness", same thing I guess. > my comment: not jst akusala, cos whenever there is awareness it can/is aware of anything that appears. Sure, but I think her point was that when awareness begins to develop more and more, the object of the awareness will almost always be akusala, just cuz there is si much more akusala than kusala. That's an important point ti understand, cuz a lot of people think the point of Dhamma is to generate kusala be aware of it, and collect it like a private treasure. And of course when there is satipatthana of akusala we are developing a treasure but not in such an obvious way. > Perhaps you are being more specific by saying that the akusala can be known as it is a reality, therefore no need to panic bec we are having lots of akusala, agree? > Yup! Metta, Phil > patience, courage and good cheer > azita > #118673 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Like that lizard, akusala vipaka? philofillet Hu again > > I checked her exact words, it was "the object is awareness", same thing I guess. Oops. "The object is akusala." Metta, Phil #118674 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:18 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E Thanks for your long reply, shouldn't have laid that on you when you have such a full platter already. As for your assertion that there are many points in suttanta that are " flat out denied by dhammas only theory" the suttanta also says there are only dhammas (ayatanas are "the all" , to give one example) If there are not inly dhammas, what on earth are there. I'll leave that with you. I knew you are from the States, of course, that "if you're American" was the impersonal pronoun. I'm from Montreal. Have a good evening. Metta, Phil p.s that paraphrase from CMA is ultra dubious, good luck tracking down that quote. #118675 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > A few responses to the Soap Box Soliloquy (in small bits): > > R: "...It basically comes down to the belief that all of the things of life that we normally perceive do not in fact exist..." > > Scott: Does it? You have yet to define your term 'perceive.' > > You haven't shown that it is anything more than thoughts about the world, nor have you made any sort of claim as to what sort of ontology you subscribe too. What, of 'all the things of life' exist. List some of them and show how they exist. Show how they don't exist. Tell me what you think exists when we are experiencing eating a meal, for instance. I don't have a final conclusion about what exists ultimately. What I do know is that we experience a world of people and objects, and that Buddha instructed us to use that situation and regard it in such a way as to develop the path. When someone sits down to practice satipatthana, they are not promoting self-view and illusion. They are exercising the capacity of citta to pay mindful attention to its object. I would be interested, though, whether your ontology is one of free-floating namas and rupas in a sea of cittas, with no arms and legs, no tables or chairs, and no universe in fact other than momentary experiences. I think the value of the Abhidhamma is that it shows how we experience reality, one dhamma at a time with citta - consciousness, the experiencing element. But I don't believe it was meant to rule out the existence of a world of objects and bodies, just because we perceive them in momentary fragments. And I don't see the Abhidhamma saying that there is no world outside of citta. In fact, rupas are said to arise independent of citta, so there is some form of a 'physical world' apart from citta's experience, even if they are just individual qualities. Do you really think that those individual qualities just come up moment to moment, unattached to any objects? Does 'hardness' exist in some sort of sea of rupas? Is that what you believe? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118676 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:34 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...the individual dhammas that appear to citta are on a continuum with the conventional objects and activities that we encounter in everyday life....both the conventional view and the conventional teaching...are valid as ways to conduct oneself and to practice,," > > Scott: You totally made this up. Buddha made it up. > You take terms that have a specific meaning within the Abhidhamma system and then twist them to fit your Very Own Theory (which is yours). In your Opinion. > Then you claim to 'practice' in accordance with the Theory, while never actually demonstrating the 'practice' as it occurs in your life. Most Buddhists accept the two levels of understanding - Buddha's conventional teaching on conduct, livelihood, practice, etc., and the view gained through extensive study and meditation of paramatha dhammas. It is your explanation of the suttas that is 'made up.' > This 'continuum' of yours is nothing more than a confused collection of categories, the elements of which being nothing more than hybrid concatenations of concepts all mashed together. > > What is a 'conventional object'? Give one example. > > True of False: Colour equals tree. Of course not. Do you think a tree is just a color? Best, Rob E. = = = = = #118677 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:41 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "What is vipassana-nana?" > > Scott: If you want to know, look it up in Useful Posts and make a bit of effort. Then, if you're still interested, let me know. > > Vipassana Nanas - see 'Stages of Insight' I didn't say I didn't know what it was. I want to hear your explanation so that you can make clear why vipassana is "exactly the same thing" as panna. But if you want to be pedantic and tell me to "make an effort" please enjoy your feeling of superiority, though it looks pretty silly on you. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118678 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Listening. philofillet Hi Nina, > > Thank you for posting that. I remember that wooden canopy so well, > > just from one trip. You must remember it so clearly from many > > trips. But for me, everything I heard that night is gone. > > > ----- > N: But you spoke about the dome of lobha that encloses us. Kh S said > that while sitting there, under the dome or canopy. Ph: I heard about it in a talk from India. It is trange how I can remember exactly where I heard certain things ftom recorded talks, while walking, this time I was on a busy road, looking into a murky dark area between a house and a convenience store. Ad for when I listened "live" in KK, the only explicit thing I remember is tge two words that settled a lot of my previous insistence on conventional sila: "Not enough." > N: Kh S often said that listening conditions thinking of dhamma, and > then we do not think of other (useless) things. Yes, I think that's it, the details that A Sujin might not answer about if we asked (she would say what about now?) they are still good to learn about because of course they support right understanding and the mind has good nutrition. As long as we don't get so lost in thinking that awareness of that thinking as a dhamma (and of any other present dhammas) is buried by an avalanche of concepts about realities... > N: I meant to ask you how you got on with the stories for children > you meant to write. > -------- Ph: I'm working sporadically with a couple of illustrators to create picture books based on my stories, and I have a pretty good nearly finished novel tgat just needs to be tightened up, but not nearly as interesting as Dhamma, so very slow progress. That's ok. I used to want to be a writer,helping a lot of people through my "healing" books. That ambition may return, no way to know. Metta, Phil #118679 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "What is vipassana-nana?" > > Scott: If you want to know, look it up in Useful Posts and make a bit of effort. Then, if you're still interested, let me know. > > Vipassana Nanas - see 'Stages of Insight' Here is a quote from Nina - admittedly totally out of context - that helps explain my view of the difference between insight and panna and how they are used with some distinctiveness: "...when satipa.t.thaana is only beginning, before insight stages, naama and ruupa are the objects of sati and pa~n~naa. How otherwise could insight be reached?" Note that in this quote panna is active in the process leading up to vipassana, and vipassana is shown as a result of the action of panna. I think it's fair to define vipassana as the insight that is gained when panna reaches a certain point and the stage of new insight - a new vipassana-nana - is reached. It doesn't mean that they are two separate cetasikas, but they signify panna in a different sort of process or part of the process of development. It is like having money in the bank. If I accumulate $100,000 my interest rate goes up by an additional percent. Panna would be like the money gradually accumulating. The vipassana-nana would be the point at which I reach $100,000 which allows for the change in interest - a new level of panna. And vipassana would be the interest level - the dawning of a new experience of understanding at a new level of panna. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #118680 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Sorry, Rob: > > Me: "True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities?" > > Scott: "An answer would be nice. As far as I know you could be an advocate of the " > > Scott: This should have been finished. I wanted to say 'an advocate of the view that holds that the only reality is Nibbaana, the rest is false. Or something like that. I'm not familiar with a lot of the more complicated terms. If you don't mind translating those for me, I'll tell you what my understanding is of them, or lack thereof. As for the idea that only Nibbana is real - I don't know what the ultimate status of namas and rupas are. Certainly they appear and are experienced. In that sense they are certainly real. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118681 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities?" > > Scott: An answer would be nice. As far as I know you could be an advocate of the > > R: "...Whatever we experience is in a given moment, one moment at a time...If something is perceived, it is then the object of citta at that moment, so it is the object of attention at that moment, so it is the object for mindfulness practice at that moment. That would be rupa of one kind or another, or nama..." > > Scott: This discussion is supposed to be looking at your 'practice' Really? Are you legally in charge of what it's about? When I spoke in my own language as to what I experienced you questioned every word I said and wanted it explained in dhamma terms. Now you are complaining that I'm explaining it in dhamma terms. I'm getting close to saying something rude. > and it seems to me that it is unlikely that you are sitting there going 'now what is the object of citta' or something. You have a tendency to use terms from the Abhidhamma, which as far as I've understood you, you don't accept. I think it's a set of distinctions that are useful and worthwhile. I don't understand the Abhidhamma so well that I'm prepared to either fully embrace it or reject it. I don't plan to reject it, and I keep learning about it, so sorry but it's not black and white. > You talk the talk about momentariness, for example, while it isn't at all clear to me that you actually accept this - except as you may have redefined the term for yourself. Well we all have our way of defining things. I guess you think that yours is embossed in gold. Whether it is clear to you or not is not my concern. I believe in momentariness as I understand it. Your mileage may vary. > It should be no surprise to you that discussion can't proceed unless terms are at least mutually understood (agreement would likely to be too much to ask of you). Not always going to happen. I don't understand a lot of Abhidhamma terms, and you don't understand more than half of what I say to you, or draw weird conclusions from it. > So, if you don't wish to take the time to honestly respond to a request to give 'your' definition of a term, fine. I don't assume that you see it the way I do. Your tendency to absorb and use terms that don't mean the same thing that you say they do is partially to blame for this need. That's your interpretation. If you're confused I can clarify my terms, but please, not every other common word. If I talk about perceiving an object, there is a common meaning for that which is not far from Abhidhamma either. And if I say 'paying attention to the breath," you can get further specification, but the basic meaning is clear. To say "what do you mean by attention" in that context seems either disingenuous or way overly nit-picking. I'm not averse to handling sincere requests for clarification, even if mine to you are sometimes met with "put in some effort and look it up yourself." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118682 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:00 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I'm not familiar with a lot of the more complicated terms. If you don't mind translating those for me..." Scott: I'd love a wet nurse myself, man. That would be sweet. Mmmm. In the absence of such a delightful thing, check out U.P.: Conventional Teaching vs by way of Ultimate Realities (sammuti sacca vs paramattha sacca) Report back after studying this material. Scott. #118683 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "True or False: Colour equals tree." R: "...Of course not. Do you think a tree is just a color?" Scott: 'Of course not true' or 'of course not false'? Here's a hint: colour equals ruupa, tree equals ? Scott. #118684 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:07 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Thanks for your long reply, shouldn't have laid that on you when you have such a full platter already. No problem. Always fun hearing from you. > As for your assertion that there are many points in suttanta that are " flat out denied by dhammas only theory" the suttanta also says there are only dhammas (ayatanas are "the all" , to give one example) If there are not inly dhammas, what on earth are there. I'll leave that with you. Well let's just keep it on the level of whether there is a world of bodies and objects or not. Do you think that is 100% hallucination? Do you think the Buddha had no conventional teaching? If so, you have turned 180 degrees in a short period of time. Have you now joined the club that says that drinking and porn are cool for Buddhists because it's all an illusion? > I knew you are from the States, of course, that "if you're American" was the impersonal pronoun. I'm from Montreal. Ah, Montreal, the cleanest city in the world - at least as I remember it from many years ago. So you're Canadian, eh? Our cousins up North. :-) > p.s that paraphrase from CMA is ultra dubious, good luck tracking down that quote. Oh it's a real quote alright. And it's been discussed here before. If I don't find it, rest assured, it exists anyway! ;-/ Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118685 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I'm not familiar with a lot of the more complicated terms. If you don't mind translating those for me..." > > Scott: I'd love a wet nurse myself, man. That would be sweet. Are you enjoying being derisive? Nobody's asking for a wet nurse and that's just nasty. If you're going to have a conversation, you don't give homework assignments, just explain what you mean if the other person doesn't know as much Pali as you. You asked me what I meant by attention and 20 other things. I think you can do the same. If not, your choice. But you can can the condescending remarks, and stop giving out assignments. It's not an Abhidhamma derby. > Mmmm. In the absence of such a delightful thing, check out U.P.: > > Conventional Teaching vs by way of Ultimate Realities (sammuti sacca vs paramattha sacca) > > Report back after studying this material. Ha ha - hope you're having fun being a jerk. I think I'll sign off. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118686 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:34 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "It doesn't mean that they are two separate cetasikas..." Scott: Correct. Pa~n~naa is the cetasika (mental factor). You got it. R: "...but they signify panna in a different sort of process or part of the process of development..." Scott: Drop the 'process' fixation and the rest is almost right: this is about the development of pa~n~naa - bhaavanaa - not 'meditation' but actual development by arising and falling away in relation to many, many different objects and *not* amenable to control. I keep bugging you about 'process' because it seems that by invoking processes you keep thinking about wholes and this leads to things and this leads to activities and this leads to 'practice' by doing activities and I do not believe in such a modern fairytale. Scott. #118687 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob > > > p.s that paraphrase from CMA is ultra dubious, good luck tracking down that quote. > > Oh it's a real quote alright. And it's been discussed here before. If I don't find it, rest assured, it exists anyway! ;-/ > Were you thinking of nimittas of dhammas, maybe? If I understand correctly there is a kind of gradation between direct awareness of the dhamma, and the nimitta, which is in a sense like a dream, and a full blown concept. Check UPs and see if the nimitta of a reality is what the quote was about. I think you have an excessive fondness for gradations between concept and reality, so I could be puttung a lit match in your hand! Re alcohol and porn, bad and foolish, both, especially alcohol, since there is a precept. I wrote the way I did to Lukas the other day for a reason, he shouldn't feel he has lost the Dhamma if his situation/conditions prevent him from abstaining re booze. Conventional teaching, conventional morality, yes, but as AS said "not enough" and it was a mistake to believe as I used to do that conventional morality (only dhammas, in truth) provided some kind of guaranteed, magical conditioning power for panna to develop. Like a lot of people I was excessively confident about my understanding of the kind of formulaic suttas that lay out tgat kind of progression. Those suttas are meaningless if we don't understand that there are only dhammas at work behind conventiinal acts, I think...who knows how I'll be seeing things next year, etc Metta, Phil #118688 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:43 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., (Howard), R: "...If you're going to have a conversation, you don't give homework assignments, just explain what you mean..." Scott: I'm certainly not going to work harder than you. When I don't understand something I'll ask eventually but I'll go and research it and study it and work on it. That's what being interested in studying and discussing the Dhamma is for me. If you want to do more than write long opinions and present your own theories, then maybe make use of some of the features on the list. Stop asking everyone to do all the work. Your terms need your definition because I can't look them up anywhere else and you definitely, without a doubt, put your very own spin on nearly every 'familiar' term you use. It's like this: Howard is an avowed 'phenomenalist' who believes that Nibbaana is the only reality, all the rest is an illusion. This is a fundamental belief for him. Knowing this, when he seems to be agreeing with anything that is about dhammas with characteristics and functions as realities, I know he can't possibly be actually agreeing unless he's changed his core belief - which he hasn't. We don't bother to discuss because it goes nowhere. We know where we are coming from. I'm trying to get a handle on where you are coming from. It certainly isn't where I'm coming from. So sign off and stop or lighten up and work a bit when you discuss things. Scott. #118689 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:08 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "It doesn't mean that they are two separate cetasikas..." > > Scott: Correct. Pa~n~naa is the cetasika (mental factor). You got it. No, that is just my intro, and is not the point at the moment. But go ahead and give yourself a point if it makes you feel good. > R: "...but they signify panna in a different sort of process or part of the process of development..." > > Scott: Drop the 'process' fixation and the rest is almost right: this is about the development of pa~n~naa - bhaavanaa - not 'meditation' but actual development by arising and falling away in relation to many, many different objects and *not* amenable to control. You don't get it, Scott. I wasn't talking about any of that at the moment. I am just trying to make clear that vipassana is a particular kind of stage or event. It's got a specialized meaning and is a specialized event in the development of panna. Try to stick to the point instead of constantly "teaching" me your generalizations. > I keep bugging you about 'process' because it seems that by invoking processes you keep thinking about wholes and this leads to things and this leads to activities and this leads to 'practice' by doing activities and I do not believe in such a modern fairytale. Well you can make up your little story about that if you like, but it is a process, and the point at the moment is not about "wholes" and all that; it's about the particular occasion of vipassana as panna progresses through the stages of the vipassana-nanas. If you don't focus on the specific relation of panna to those stages, you miss the process at play and you also miss the entire meaning and importance of vipassana. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118690 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:12 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "True or False: Colour equals tree." > > R: "...Of course not. Do you think a tree is just a color?" > > Scott: 'Of course not true' or 'of course not false'? 'Of course not' is a negative, and it is applied to the statement, which is "Color equals tree." It means 'false.' Here's a hint: colour equals ruupa, tree equals ? Lots of rupas and namas. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #118691 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > p.s that paraphrase from CMA is ultra dubious, good luck tracking down that quote. > > > > Oh it's a real quote alright. And it's been discussed here before. If I don't find it, rest assured, it exists anyway! ;-/ > > > Were you thinking of nimittas of dhammas, maybe? If I understand correctly there is a kind of gradation between direct awareness of the dhamma, and the nimitta, which is in a sense like a dream, and a full blown concept. Check UPs and see if the nimitta of a reality is what the quote was about. I think you have an excessive fondness for gradations between concept and reality, so I could be puttung a lit match in your hand! Yes, I'm sure it was in that context. Now I'll have to try to find it to see how general it was. Perhaps it's a gradation, as you say, up from pure conceptual delusion, to seeing the shadows or silhouettes so to speak of dhammas. I think it was along those lines. My own sense is that conventional reality is itself such a shadowy version of dhammas, perhaps just further away from their reality than the nimittas that start to see what is there. Will try to see if CMA supports that or not. > Re alcohol and porn, bad and foolish, both, especially alcohol, since there is a precept. I wrote the way I did to Lukas the other day for a reason, he shouldn't feel he has lost the Dhamma if his situation/conditions prevent him from abstaining re booze. I was thinking more about your own posts from some months ago when you insisted very strongly that making progress in conventional behavior was extremely important, and that the conceptual level of Abhidhamma could serve as a kind of false comfort in the midst of various defilements. > Conventional teaching, conventional morality, yes, but as AS said "not enough" and it was a mistake to believe as I used to do that conventional morality (only dhammas, in truth) provided some kind of guaranteed, magical conditioning power for panna to develop. Well there's no reason to swing the pendulum all the way over the other way. Conventional morality supports kusala, does it not? > Like a lot of people I was excessively confident about my understanding of the kind of formulaic suttas that lay out that kind of progression. Those suttas are meaningless if we don't understand that there are only dhammas at work behind conventional acts, I think...who knows how I'll be seeing things next year, etc. Sure. I wouldn't say they are meaningless, remembering that Buddha identified kusala and akusala on all three levels - thought, speech and action. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118692 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > I'm trying to get a handle on where you are coming from. It certainly isn't where I'm coming from. So sign off and stop or lighten up and work a bit when you discuss things. I don't think I need to be told when to work by you. If you use a couple of Pali terms that are fairly complex and potentially hard to look up, just translate them in parentheses, for God's sake. Then if I want to look into them further I can do it more easily. Every post doesn't have to be a research project just to understand what you are saying. I think it's unreasonable - it's like me writing in French and saying 'get a dictionary.' Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118693 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:26 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob > Yes, I'm sure it was in that context. Now I'll have to try to find it to see how general it was. Perhaps it's a gradation, as you say, up from pure conceptual delusion, to seeing the shadows or silhouettes so to speak of dhammas. I think it was along those lines. As it happens I just heard a good discussion on this topic, if you go to Feb 8, afternoon session around the 6 minute mark. It's a tough topic and I suspect it's an error to start making a big deal out of nimitta, especially for intellectually adventurous fellows like you. By the way, I know Scott is rubbing you the wrong way and that wet nurse gag (albeit delicious in a sense) would have had me tellung him to go ohmigod himself, but your refusal to look into those terms and study them,and ibstead insist on an English word as a suitable suvstitute for studying, it made me wonder again if you are serious about studying Dhamma or are just enjoying exploring your own ideas. Right now it seems like the latter, so please allow me to try again to delicately step away from your babbling brook of ideas... I assume you know the talks are at dsg.org. Metta, Phil #118694 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again Rob Oops, it's in part 2 of that session. Metta Phil #118695 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) nilovg Op 13-okt-2011, om 16:25 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Was that meditation asubha? ----- He developed jhaana and insight. when we read about kamma.thaana it can be subject of samatha but also object of vipassanaa. Hard to tell the different moments. They may alternate. Nina. #118696 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-okt-2011, om 18:36 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > After Gotama became the Buddha, how long was it before he > > established the Bhikkhu Sangha? Was it not well more than a day? ------- N: The Buddha was a very special case. And as to the Sangha, the ordained the five disciples, after that Yasa and others, that was already the beginning of the Sangha. ------ Nina. #118697 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta doesn't arise, fall and has no characteristics? nilovg Op 13-okt-2011, om 19:05 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Dear Nina, all, > > Concepts are said not to have characteristics. What about concepts > of the real by means of the real? vijjamanena vijjamanapannatti > > Whenever we talk about citta, cetasika, rupa, etc, these are > supposed to be real, but we use concepts. So does this mean that > concept of citta, cetasika and rupa do not have characteristics, do > not arise and cease? > ------ N: The terms that denote these realities do not arise and fall away. ----- Nina. #118698 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 13-okt-2011, om 14:35 heeft Maipenrai Dhammasaro het volgende geschreven: > Please add where in the Tipitaka, an arahant has to be a "he." ------ N: We can use 'he' denoting something in general, but of course there were bhikkhunis arahats. See Therigaatha. Nina. #118699 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Vince, Op 14-okt-2011, om 0:34 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > and what say the texts about the way of paccekabuddhas? > Can they reach arhanthood in solitude without be monks? (I mean > eremites and related) ------ N: paccekabuddhas have eradicated all defilements, have reached arahatship. But they do not have the ability to teach the eightfold Path, not to the same extent as the sammaasambuddha. They teach siila. ------ Nina. #118700 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, I forgot in my turn the salution to Alex, sorry Alex. Op 13-okt-2011, om 18:37 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Apologies for my missing the salutation in my reply to you. ----- Never mind, I do too. Nina. #118701 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:00 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "Correct. Pa~n~naa is the cetasika (mental factor). You got it." R: "No, that is just my intro, and is not the point at the moment...: Scott: Now we both agree that pa~n~naa is the mental factor in this case. Now you have clarified for yourself that vipassanaa is *not* a mental factor, as you had originally stated. R: "...I am just trying to make clear that vipassana is a particular kind of stage or event...If you don't focus on the specific relation of panna to those stages, you miss the process at play and you also miss the entire meaning and importance of vipassana." Scott: Yes. Pa~n~naa develops. What, for you in your practice, is 'the importance of vipassanaa'? I'll bet that your need to see 'stages' and 'processes' relates to your belief that you can 'do' vipassanaa and these 'stages' can be 'used' to show you how much progress you are making while you 'do' it. Scott. #118702 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:05 pm Subject: Sense/mind door appears... philofillet Hi all I know this is over my head, but I will ask once, hear the answer, and back away from the topic again.. When it is said "the sense door appears" it actually means that the characteristic of the sense door consciousness is experienced, is that right? And "the mind door appears" is even more difficult to fathom because we confuse the mind door consciousness which, for example, also experiences rupa, with thinking, which thinks about concepts. I have no understanding whatsover of a mind door which can experience rupas, but not by thinking about them.. Metta, Phil #118703 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...It means 'false.'" Scott: True or False: Colour is visible object; visible object is ruupa. Me: "...colour equals ruupa, tree equals ?" R: "Lots of rupas and namas." Scott: True or False: Tree is naama. Scott. #118704 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I don't think I need to be told when to work by you...I think it's unreasonable - it's like me writing in French and saying 'get a dictionary.'" Scott: If I wanted to learn French I'd get a dictionary and try to understand the French you were writing because you would know it and I would not. I would ask you to clarify things I couldn't find but I'd not expect you to simply put all the French into my head for me. If you want to do more than just use prosaic short essays to express your belief in 'practice' then I think you should work a bit. If you only want admiration for your thoughts, well... Were someone to tell you that looking up things you didn't understand in order to learn about them was 'practice' and you 'should do it' would that be different? Of course it's no such thing. This should go to show that there is no 'practice.' You can no more create the particular dhammas that would have to be in place for you to find yourself making the effort to learn than you can create any other dhammas. You find yourself wanting to be spoon-fed instead. Scott. #118705 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/13/2011 7:04:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Sorry, Rob: Me: "True or False: Vohaara or sammutti-sacca and paramattha-sacca refer are two separate realities?" Scott: "An answer would be nice. As far as I know you could be an advocate of the " Scott: This should have been finished. I wanted to say 'an advocate of the view that holds that the only reality is Nibbaana, the rest is false. Or something like that. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: I've not seen Robert express such a notion. I have, however - and apparently the Buddha (if one accepts the quote I append to this post). In any case, Robert and I are not twins. ;-) --------------------------------------------------- Scott. ================================ With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #118706 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "I've not seen Robert express such a notion. I have, however - and apparently the Buddha (if one accepts the quote I append to this post). In any case, Robert and I are not twins..." Scott: Ha ha. You I've pinned down; you and your quotes. Rob. E. is still squirming... Scott. #118707 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:21 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob > > > Yes, I'm sure it was in that context. Now I'll have to try to find it to see how general it was. Perhaps it's a gradation, as you say, up from pure conceptual delusion, to seeing the shadows or silhouettes so to speak of dhammas. I think it was along those lines. > > As it happens I just heard a good discussion on this topic, if you go to Feb 8, afternoon session around the 6 minute mark. It's a tough topic and I suspect it's an error to start making a big deal out of nimitta, especially for intellectually adventurous fellows like you. By the way, I know Scott is rubbing you the wrong way and that wet nurse gag (albeit delicious in a sense) would have had me tellung him to go ohmigod himself, but your refusal to look into those terms and study them,and ibstead insist on an English word as a suitable suvstitute for studying, it made me wonder again if you are serious about studying Dhamma or are just enjoying exploring your own ideas. Right now it seems like the latter, so please allow me to try again to delicately step away from your babbling brook of ideas... Step away as you wish, Phil. I don't know about the "babbling brook" which doesn't seem very fair, considering all the questions I'm being asked, but whatever. I appreciate a suggestion like yours to go to the tape, and I can do that if and when I have time or if I wish to. Imagine someone giving you instructions or saying "look into this" and adopting the stance of a teacher without invitation. Would you like that? I don't think so. If someone is having a conversation, it's their job to communicate, not pompously give homework assignments. If I used a term that you didn't understand, I wouldn't say 'go do some homework,' I would tell you what it meant. To me, that is the basic courtesy of having an exchange, not giving people assignments. I look into a lot, but Scott's attitude, assignments and nasty remarks are not desirable. You can see it as you wish, but I wish both of you would stop making personal assessments of how serious I am about Dhamma, characterizing my comments as babbling or wanting a wet nurse or whatever, and either discuss the subject under discussion if it is of interest to you, or else keep your mouths shut. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118708 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:31 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott, and bye Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I don't think I need to be told when to work by you...I think it's unreasonable - it's like me writing in French and saying 'get a dictionary.'" > > Scott: If I wanted to learn French I'd get a dictionary and try to understand the French you were writing because you would know it and I would not. I would ask you to clarify things I couldn't find but I'd not expect you to simply put all the French into my head for me. If you want to do more than just use prosaic short essays to express your belief in 'practice' then I think you should work a bit. If you only want admiration for your thoughts, well... > > Were someone to tell you that looking up things you didn't understand in order to learn about them was 'practice' and you 'should do it' would that be different? Of course it's no such thing. This should go to show that there is no 'practice.' > > You can no more create the particular dhammas that would have to be in place for you to find yourself making the effort to learn than you can create any other dhammas. You find yourself wanting to be spoon-fed instead. I disagree with you. I didn't ask to be instructed in Dhamma by you. I learn from these discussions, but that's what they are, discussions, and it's not "spoon feeding" to ask you what you mean by a term in a discussion. At this point you are using these posts to make the same general point over again, that there is no practice and that dhammas arise by themselves, the same points you started out with. You are not actually interested in discussing practice, or learning anything yourself. You're here to prove your point, so I will stop having this conversation. I would thank you for the effort, but you have been doing your best to be disparaging and dismissive, and are not really open to any ideas that could be exchanged. Making remarks about my wanting a "wet nurse" and to be "spoon fed" because I ask for a translation of a couple of terms is ridiculous. That would be a simple courtesy. You're an asocial person, and that's fine, but I've had enough. I'll answer posts if they have something of substance worth talking about, but these personal remarks and assessments on your part are going nowhere. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #118709 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:36 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Making remarks about my wanting a 'wet nurse' and to be 'spoon fed' because I ask for a translation..." Scott: Okay but, for the record, I did suggest that you had weaned. Scott. #118710 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Howard, > > HCW: "I've not seen Robert express such a notion. I have, however - and apparently the Buddha (if one accepts the quote I append to this post). In any case, Robert and I are not twins..." > > Scott: Ha ha. You I've pinned down; you and your quotes. Rob. E. is still squirming... Yes, I'm squirming like someone stuck in a small train compartment with someone who is smoking a big cigar. Nice work! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118711 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Yes, I'm squirming like someone stuck in a small train compartment with someone who is smoking a big cigar. Nice work!" Scott: Ha ha. Well at least your not pinned down yet. I don't discuss with Howard because his views are fixed and antithetical to mine. Yours probably are but I don't know yet... Scott. #118712 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Making remarks about my wanting a 'wet nurse' and to be 'spoon fed' because I ask for a translation..." > > Scott: Okay but, for the record, I did suggest that you had weaned. I think there's some doubt about that, Scott. I think that in truth you believe that anyone that doesn't follow the party line and walk in lock-step to your belief system with its specialized indexical terminology is spouting nonsense and is out of touch with reality. Because that which we can see, feel and understand is a hallucination, and the only thing that's real is what we can only read about in books and conceptualize. So you live in a world of proliferation about non-proliferation, dreaming of the heaven of dhammas that are perfectly formed and executed - a flawless reality that is a delightful security blanket. That's fine. Like any dogmatist, from the moonies to any other group orthodoxy, you've got a self-enclosed system with its own terms and self-congratulatory interchanges, and that allows you to proceed triumphally along without ever having any challenges to your sense of importance. After all, you are part of an elite who has gone beyond the unknowing masses and discovered what only a few people know - that most of what the Buddha said either has a hidden meaning that only you know, or else means the opposite of what it says. "Practice" means "don't practice" and "strive" means "avoid striving at all costs." The mass of commentaries gives you a system of explanations that give a prefabricated formula for every term the Buddha used. By defining dhammas as discrete little monads with absolute definitions and functions that are never experienced, but which fit together in the conceptual explanation that is shared by believers, you can spend your life in a world of intellectual presumptions that never have to be challenged by anything that can be directly seen or known. You can relax, enjoy making arrogant comments and feeling superior, knowing that there won't be any test of your beliefs for thousands or perhaps millions of lifetimes. So carry on. No reason to challenge anything you believe at this point. What purpose would it serve? Take it easy, okay? We all have something we're attached to. When we are "weaned" from it is a matter of conditions. Perhaps even your mind will open some day and allow some new information in. Who knows? Anything is possible. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118713 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:44 am Subject: Further Discussions India. 1. nilovg Dear friends, Further Discussions India. 1. Kh S: If one thinks that one needs volition to fix on an object, it is not the way to understand it and to become detached. The development of understanding has to be very natural and then pa~n~naa will see that there is no need to do anything, no need to try to concentrate on any object. The characteristics of realities have to be understood. We talk about seeing and hardness all the time and these appear all day long without any awareness of their characteristics. Just understand characteristics of realities and you know that at that moment there is awareness, very natural and very slight, and that is sammaa-sati because that moment is anattaa. But lobha will come in again and again and then pa~n~naa can see it. Otherwise there will be clinging to ‘rites and rituals’ (wrong practice) all the way. When we talk about wrong view or personality belief (sakkaya di.t.thi) we know the terms, but that is not the understanding of its characteristic. While we talk about it and wrong view does not arise how could we know the moment when di.t.thi which is naama is there? When we are talking about any citta, citta arises and falls away all the time, no matter it is with di.t.thi or without di.t.thi. Pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana will begin to see the characteristics of all realities we formerly talked about. If there is no di.t.thi arising it is of no use to think about it. Now there is seeing and it is of no use to think about di.t.thi, at that moment it does not appear. There can be a beginning to understand that seeing is a reality, not a being, no one. There is just this characteristic that is now appearing and then other characteristics appear, like sound. But since pa~n~naa and sati have not been developed enough there must be long periods of citta without sati until there are conditions for the arising of sati. Then sati can be aware of an object, not intentionally, but because of conditions. There will be less misunderstanding of reality as being ‘some thing’. ******* Nina. #118714 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:58 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I think that in truth you believe that anyone that doesn't follow the party line and walk in lock-step to your belief system with its specialized indexical terminology is spouting nonsense and is out of touch with reality..." Scott: Hey. Your're still with me! Of course. You, a 'meditation' advocate also hold to your views and think similar things about those who don't. And we try to discuss. And we disagree. Nothing to go cry to mommy about. So what? R: "...Like any dogmatist, from the moonies to any other group orthodoxy, you've got a self-enclosed system with its own terms and self-congratulatory interchanges, and that allows you to proceed triumphally along without ever having any challenges to your sense of importance..." Scott: We are the same, but of opposing views. So? R: "'Practice' means 'don't practice' and 'strive' means "avoid striving at all costs." The mass of commentaries gives you a system of explanations that give a prefabricated formula for every term the Buddha used. By defining dhammas as discrete little monads with absolute definitions and functions..." Scott: This is same the message, more or less, that you get from me, Jon, Nina, Sarah, pt (sort of), and Phil (until he takes it back). Why don't you give them the same message? It is clear what you think of it (you just think you're chewing me out). You just don't care my style of discussion. You have yet to make an even reasonable case for your belief in 'practice' that is generated by a mere conscious wish that something wholesome will happen. Scott. #118715 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:07 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote 'Hi, Dieter - I'm replying only to a bit of your post, for the rest of the material seems to have been pretty well hashed out between us in earlier posts, and we clearly differ on it. D: yes , it becomes a little bit tiring, sorry ..but I like to get a clear definition of this difference , so please , let me still have a few words more: you say the collection (can we use 'gathering') of interrelated parts functioning together as a unit , do not constitute a (new) reality but represents nothing else to us than a conceptional view , right? As examples we may think of a living being (person) or a chariot. (For me this issue is a good opportunity to contemplate about the debate of Milinda Banha..) H: (HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) =============================== The Buddha didn't say "simply," but I believe the point of his definition was to point to what is essential in the matter, the volition, ruling out more than volition in what is covered by 'kamma', most specifically excluding any fatalistic connotation and the actions (kamma-patha) that implement it. So, yes, "simply volition". D: ok, your interpretation , though you may agree with mine as well (?): This volition, , kamma force (2nd in D.O. ) which the Buddha equated with cetana (will) involves urge, thirst (tanha) , conditioned by ignorance. This thirst (to act ) represents the orgination of suffering , it is the fuel of that energy which keeps us in samsara. Therefore I said 'understatement' .. with Metta Dieter #118716 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:17 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I think that in truth you believe that anyone that doesn't follow the party line and walk in lock-step to your belief system with its specialized indexical terminology is spouting nonsense and is out of touch with reality..." > > Scott: Hey. Your're still with me! Of course. You, a 'meditation' advocate also hold to your views and think similar things about those who don't. And we try to discuss. And we disagree. Nothing to go cry to mommy about. So what? > > R: "...Like any dogmatist, from the moonies to any other group orthodoxy, you've got a self-enclosed system with its own terms and self-congratulatory interchanges, and that allows you to proceed triumphally along without ever having any challenges to your sense of importance..." > > Scott: We are the same, but of opposing views. So? > > R: "'Practice' means 'don't practice' and 'strive' means "avoid striving at all costs." The mass of commentaries gives you a system of explanations that give a prefabricated formula for every term the Buddha used. By defining dhammas as discrete little monads with absolute definitions and functions..." > > Scott: This is same the message, more or less, that you get from me, Jon, Nina, Sarah, pt (sort of), and Phil (until he takes it back). Why don't you give them the same message? It is clear what you think of it (you just think you're chewing me out). You just don't care my style of discussion. You have yet to make an even reasonable case for your belief in 'practice' that is generated by a mere conscious wish that something wholesome will happen. I just wanted to make you read that damned thing. Mission accomplished! I may address the issues again when I have a little more time. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118717 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/14/2011 12:07:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote 'Hi, Dieter - I'm replying only to a bit of your post, for the rest of the material seems to have been pretty well hashed out between us in earlier posts, and we clearly differ on it. D: yes , it becomes a little bit tiring, sorry ..but I like to get a clear definition of this difference , so please , let me still have a few words more: -------------------------------------------- HCW: :-) Of course! -------------------------------------------- you say the collection (can we use 'gathering') of interrelated parts functioning together as a unit , do not constitute a (new) reality but represents nothing else to us than a conceptional view , right? As examples we may think of a living being (person) or a chariot. --------------------------------------------- HCW: I think that's a fair, i.e., accurate, summary. --------------------------------------------- (For me this issue is a good opportunity to contemplate about the debate of Milinda Banha..) ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I consider the chariot metaphor/simile to have two purposes: 1) To disabuse people of the notion of "a whole" as an individual thing, and 2) To emphasize the importance of relations, especially functionally. ------------------------------------------------ H: (HCW: Any kamma is simply volition, a mental phenomenon. D: quite an understatement for the energy which keeps us in samsara (cetana = kamma (force)= volition=will =sankhara (in D.O. 2nd link, the 4th the reacting will) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: It was the Buddha's statement. ------------------------------------------------- D: I doubt the word 'simply' until reading otherwise .. ;-) =============================== The Buddha didn't say "simply," but I believe the point of his definition was to point to what is essential in the matter, the volition, ruling out more than volition in what is covered by 'kamma', most specifically excluding any fatalistic connotation and the actions (kamma-patha) that implement it. So, yes, "simply volition". D: ok, your interpretation , though you may agree with mine as well (?): This volition, , kamma force (2nd in D.O. ) which the Buddha equated with cetana (will) involves urge, thirst (tanha) , conditioned by ignorance. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Much of our kamma is conditioned by ignorance and craving. I agree with that. ------------------------------------------- This thirst (to act ) represents the orgination of suffering , it is the fuel of that energy which keeps us in samsara. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Certainly. (I do note, though, that wholesome willing may be selfless and motivated by wisdom and compassion rather than thirst.) ------------------------------------------- Therefore I said 'understatement' .. ------------------------------------------ HCW: And as I said before and now reiterate: I agree with you that intention/volition [for good or evil, I add here] is a major "big deal"!! --------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118718 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:57 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I just wanted to make you read that damned thing. Mission accomplished! I may address the issues again when I have a little more time." Scott: Oh, okay. Yeah for sure. I always read them. Scott. #118719 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:59 am Subject: Concept of citta and tilakkhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: The terms that denote these realities do not arise and fall away. >--------------------------------------------------- So whenever one thinks or talks about citta,etc, it is conceptual? How can it be non-conceptually understood? Also, an interesting note: A singular citta cannot cognize its own characteristic such as anicca. At least one or more citta-vitthi process has to occur to cognize previuos citta's characteristic. So does this mean that cognition of anicca (or dukkha or anatta) is also conceptual? One never cognizes anicca (or other characteristic) with the same citta. With best wishes, Alex #118720 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view truth_aerator Hello Howard, Dieter, all >D: you say the collection (can we use 'gathering') of interrelated >parts > functioning together as a unit , do not constitute a (new) >reality... >--------------------------------------------- >HCW: I think that's a fair, i.e., accurate, summary. >--------------------------------------------- What about emergent properties? When there is combination of two atoms of Hydrogen per one atom of Oxygen (both are gases) the outcome is H20, water which is liquid. It has different properties that are not found in hydrogen or oxygen. t is not a mere addition of more parts, but a qualitative change. Same with many other processes. Also we need to be careful with analysis. In some cases it is theoretic and practically impossible. You cannot take a living being and divide it into 5 separate heaps (body, feelings, perceptions, volitions, consciousness) to be placed side by side. The mental unit cannot be divided into 4 parts, it also arises consisting of 4 aggregates. The separation never occurs, it is only in theory it is done to explain this or that point. With best wishes, Alex #118721 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2011 12:59:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Nina, all, >N: The terms that denote these realities do not arise and fall away. >--------------------------------------------------- So whenever one thinks or talks about citta,etc, it is conceptual? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I prefer (for myself) to drop talk of "thoughts", "concepts", and "conceptual" as much as possible. What is going on in any such case is THINKING, a mental process. Whenever one thinks about anything, cittas included, it is a matter of thinking - period. And this is so not only when we are explicitly reasoning. It applies even with ordinary perception (sa~n~na), which is a sort of proto-thinking. When we perceive not only trees and cars but even warmths and hardnesses and cittas as separate "things", thinking at an elementary and subliminal level is underway. Ninety-nine percent of the time we live in a "nimitta/percept world," like a boater on a river who not only distinguishes the quality of water activity in a whirlpool from that in straight flows, but perceives "the whirlpool" as a separate entity. ----------------------------------------------- How can it be non-conceptually understood? ----------------------------------------- HCW: By wisdom, which is direct and does not involve thinking in its functioning. However, wisdom and thinking may mutually condition each other, with wisdom raising the level of thinking, and right thinking serving to condition the arising of wisdom. --------------------------------------- Also, an interesting note: A singular citta cannot cognize its own characteristic such as anicca. At least one or more citta-vitthi process has to occur to cognize previuos citta's characteristic. So does this mean that cognition of anicca (or dukkha or anatta) is also conceptual? ---------------------------------------- HCW: Usually. But wisdom may near-instantly penetrate and compare the results of recollections, revealing truth without any thinking involved. Wisdom is far above thinking in its power, depth, speed, and range. It is the sovereign of faculties. ----------------------------------------- One never cognizes anicca (or other characteristic) with the same citta. ----------------------------------------- HCW: I believe that is true. ------------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118722 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2011 1:29:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, Dieter, all >D: you say the collection (can we use 'gathering') of interrelated >parts > functioning together as a unit , do not constitute a (new) >reality... >--------------------------------------------- >HCW: I think that's a fair, i.e., accurate, summary. >--------------------------------------------- What about emergent properties? When there is combination of two atoms of Hydrogen per one atom of Oxygen (both are gases) the outcome is H20, water which is liquid. It has different properties that are not found in hydrogen or oxygen. t is not a mere addition of more parts, but a qualitative change. Same with many other processes. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: The number of presuppositions involved in your question, the world view involved, makes it very difficult for me to answer. I'll try, ignoring the matter of perspective: When water is apprehended, there is no oxygen and no hydrogen apprehended. This is a case of conditions coming together to produce something new: two conditions yielding a 3rd. -------------------------------------------- Also we need to be careful with analysis. In some cases it is theoretic and practically impossible. You cannot take a living being and divide it into 5 separate heaps (body, feelings, perceptions, volitions, consciousness) to be placed side by side. The mental unit cannot be divided into 4 parts, it also arises consisting of 4 aggregates. The separation never occurs, it is only in theory it is done to explain this or that point. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: What you say cannot be done does in fact happen at death. When the elements no longer function in concert, the "system", to use Dieter's terminology, no longer exists. ------------------------------------------------ With best wishes, Alex =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118723 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view truth_aerator Hi Howard, all, >HCW: When water is apprehended, there is no oxygen and no hydrogen >apprehended. This is a case of conditions coming together to >produce something new: two conditions yielding a 3rd. >================================================== Right. But the third one is qualitatively different, and is more than mere sum of the parts. It is not like heterogeneous mixture, but a homogeneous one. >HCW: What you say cannot be done does in fact happen at death. >===================================================== Body dies and mind conditions the next instance of mind in another body. That consciousness doesn't travel from one body to another. That instance of consciousness ceases with that body. Consciousness (Vinnana) cannot occur separately from feeling (vedana) for example. And these are not physically separate from perception (sanna). "For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."" - MN43 Furthermore the boundary between feeling & consciousness is not that clear cut: "'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.'" ...It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor pain." - MN43 What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain. - MN140 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118724 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, >HCW:I prefer (for myself) to drop talk of "thoughts", "concepts", >and > "conceptual" as much as possible. What is going on in any >such >case is THINKING, a mental process. Whenever one thinks about >anything, cittas included, it is a matter of thinking - period. >================================== What is the difference between thinking about "citta" and about "a tree", for example. In both cases it is thinking. In both cases it apprehends what you call "nimitt". It is interesting that in the suttas the Buddha freely and very often uses concepts and even includes them in satipatthana. They are said to lead to fulfillment of satipatthana which results in Nibbana. Even the five aggregates is a conceptual scheme as it refers to five groups in general. Group (or aggregate) is not an "ultimate reality". It is more of an indexical term. With best wishes, Alex #118725 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:16 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I just wanted to make you read that damned thing. Mission accomplished! I may address the issues again when I have a little more time." > > Scott: Oh, okay. Yeah for sure. I always read them. Well, you're a good guy I guess after all. Now stop saying I want my mommy - even if it's true - so I don't have the urge to do bad things like writing long posts, okay? You want to support the arising of kusala citta, don't you? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118726 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana nilovg Dear Alex, Op 14-okt-2011, om 21:14 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Even the five aggregates is a conceptual scheme as it refers to > five groups in general. Group (or aggregate) is not an "ultimate > reality". It is more of an indexical term. ---------- N: Yes, it is a classification of paramattha dhammas. Tika to Vis. Ch XIV, 217: Tiika. 'When all formed dhammas are grouped together according to similarity, they naturally fall into five categories. ------ N: , in Pali: sabbasa”nkhata, all conditioned dhammas. The dhammas that are classified as khandhas arise because of their appropriate conditions. They arise and fall away. The teaching of the five khandhas is the teaching of citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that appear in daily life through the six doorways. By the development of insight the dhammas that are classified as the five khandhas will be seen as impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. Alex, I returned to Vis Ch XIV and found a lot of interesting material on the five khandhas, being neither less nor more! ------ Nina. #118727 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:44 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob Now stop saying I want my mommy - even if it's true - so I don't have the urge to do bad things like writing long posts, okay? You want to support the arising of kusala citta, don't you? > This frigging sucks. I am the one who created the Dhamma mommy concept and now you have very smoothly managed to appropriate it. Nice job buddy. Watch your back. By the way, part 3 of the talk I mentionned contains even more about nimitta. Also part 1 of the Feb 6 discussion. Metta, Phil #118728 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:04 am Subject: Re: Ayatanas revisited philofillet Hi all Here is an awesome post on the ayatanas: > You've inspired me to consider a little more on ayatanas and i've been > following some of your references. (Details can be found for others in > Visuddhimagga, ch XV: The Bases and Elements ) > ********** > (Vis 1)"The bases are the twelve bases, that is to say, the eye-base, > visible-data base, ear base, sound base, nose base, odour base, tongue > base, flavour base, body base, tangible-data bae, mind base, mental-data > base." > > (5)"Furthermore, `base, (ayatana) should be understood in the sense of > abode, store (mine), meeting-place, locality of birth, and cause.'"(Vism > XV,5) > ********** > When we read about ayatanas, I understand it is the importance of the > meeting point of the various phenomena that is being stressed. Hence when > there is the meeting of visible object, eye base and seeing consciousness, > they are actuated (aayananti) and so on. I think they help us to > understand that this moment is conditioned in a split-second and then > passes away. We learn more about the conditioned nature of all realities: > ********** > (15) "As to how to be seen: here all formed bases should be regarded as > having no provenance and no destination. for they do not come from > anywhere prior to their rise, nor do they go anywhere after their fall. > On the contrary, before their rise they had no individual essence > , and after their fall their individual essences are completely > dissolved. And they occur without mastery (being exercisable over them) > since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between past and the > future. Hence they should be regarded a having no provenance and no > destination. > > `Likewise they should be regarded as incurious and uninterested. for it > does not occur to the eye and the visible datum, etc, `Ah, that > consciousness might arise from our concurrence'. And as door, physical > basis, and object, they have no curiosity about, or interest in, arousing > consciousness. On the contrary, it is the absolute rule that the > eye-consciousness, etc, come into being with the union of the eye with > visible datum, and so on. So they should be regarded as incurious and > uninterested. > > `Furthermore, the internal bases should be regarded as an empty village > because they are devoid of lastingness, pleasure, and self; and the > external ones ass village-raiding robbers (S.iv,175) because they raid the > internal ones. and this is said: `Bhikkhus, the eye is harassed by > agreeable and disagreeable visible objects' (S.iv,175). Furthermore, the > internal ones should be regarded as like the six creatures (S.iv, 198-99) > and the external ones as like their resorts....'" > ********** > These same quotes are given in the Dispeller of Delusion. However, Frank > will find it of interest, that in the Dispeller translation it says `the > internal bases should be regarded as an empty village because they are > devoid of lastingness, beauty, pleasure and self...' (note the inclusion > of beauty). > ..... > I was interested to read the Sam Nikaya references which I think Christine > will appreciate(1V, 238 The Vipers). > ********** > We read about a man's adventure facing four deadly vipers, five murderous > enemies,an even more scary sixth murderer, village-attacking dacoits and a > great expanse of water to be crossed with no ferry or boat: > > "'The four vipers of fierce heat and deadly venom': this is a designation > for the four great elements...... > `The five murderous enemies': this is a desgnation for the five > aggregates ubject to clinging...... > `The sixth murderer, the intimate companion with drawn sword': this is a > desgnation for delight and lust. > `The empty village': this is a designation for the six internal sense > bases. If bhikkhus, a wise, competent, intelligent person examines them > by way of the eye, they appear to be void, hollow, empty....by way of the > ear....by way of the mind.... > `Village-attacking dacoits': this is a designation for the six external > sense bases. The eye, bhikkhus, is attacked by agreeable and disagreeable > forms, the ear..The nose...The tongue...The body..The mind is attacked by > agreeable and disagreeable mental phenomena. > `The great expanse of water': this is a designation for the four floods; > the flood of sensulality, the flood of existence, the flood of views, and > the flood of ignorance. > `The near shore, which is dangerous and fearful': this is a designation > for identity. > `The further shore, which is safe and free from danger': this is a > designation for Nibbana. > `The raft': this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path; that is > right view....right concentration. > `Making effort with hands and feet': this is a desgnation for the > arousing of energy. > `Crossed over, gone beyond, the brahmin stands on high ground': this is a > designation for the arahant." > ********** > > I asked about a few points when we were in Bangkok that you'd all been > discussing. As I recollect, the ayatanas help us understand how this > moment is conditioned `in a split second' and passes away.. We cannot say > that ayatanas are another way of classifying namas and rupas. Mind base > refers to all cittas, including lokuttara and all bhavanga cittas strictly > speaking. However, manayatana `doesn't usually refer to bhavanga cittas > because `who knows these?'' Cetasikas are classified as external mind > objects (dhammayatana), but not pannatti (concepts) which of course are > not real. > > We can only talk about eyebase (cakkayatana) at this moment of seeing > (cakkhuvinnana) and other experiences through this doorway.It is only at > this meeting (as we read in the Vism quote above) that eye sense and > visible object have sabhava. > > Num, most of the detail on ayatana in the Dispeller of Delusion > (Sammohavinodani) is included in the Visuddhimagga. This includes the > paragraph which I think you asked to be quoted in full. It can be found > (identical, from a quick look) at Vism XV, 14 and includes these two > sentences: > ********** > "...And the mind base, when classified according to profitable, > unprofitable, resultant, and functional consciousness, is of eighty-nine > inds or of one hundred and twenty-one kinds, but it is of infinite variety > when classified according to physical basis, progress, and so on. The > visible data, sound, odour and flavour bases are of infinite variety when > classified according to sissimilarity, condition, and so on...." > ********** > This really reminds me of the complexity of conditions and the infinite > variety of resulting phenomena. Categories and numbers are only used to > help us understand these phenomena better, I think. > > Let me add one more quote: > > ********** > > Sam Nik 1V, 19 Delight > > "Bhikkhus, one who seeks delight in the eye seks delight in suffering. > One who seeks delight in suffering, I say, is not free from suffering. > One who seeks delight in the ear..in the nose..in the tongue..in the > body...in the mind eeks delight in suffering. One who seeks delight in > suffering, I say, is not freed from suffering. > > One who does not seek delight in the eye...in the mind does not seek > delight in suffering. One who does not seek delight in suffering, I say, > is freed from suffering." > > 20 Delight 2 > (The same for the six external sense bases). > ********** > Thanks for the chance to consider a little more. > Sarah > ========================================= > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk > #118729 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Aggregate (khandha) is another word for "group". Group as you know isn't supposed to ultimately exist. ""Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the consciousness aggregate." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html When Buddha said "conscious aggregate" He didn't mean a presently arisen specific single consciousness. Furthermore future/past consciousness doesn't exist, so how can it be paramattha? It doesn't exist. Since citta cannot know its own characteristic (such as anicca), whenever we talk about consciousness being anicca, we are refering to an idea of consciousness that is anicca. One specific instance of citta doesn't last long enough to be itself examined in detail. We examine, what Howard like to call, nimitta. Not a real thing in the present. With best wishes, Alex #118730 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ayatanas again, to Num philofillet Hi again all The companion post mentionned in the previous one. My dhamma mommies (not Rob E's!!) laid down a double whammy classic combo on the internal and external sense bases: > Nina: The classification of ayatanas, sense-fields, is different from the > classification of objects (arammana) or elements (dhatus). As to ayatanas, > the Buddha teaches here the meeting or association of object, base and the > relevant citta that experiences an object. The eyebase is not a subtle rupa, > it is a coarse rupa, the senses and the sense objects are coarse rupas. The > eyesense is not classified as dhammayatana but as cakkhayatana, the base of > the eye. Evenso for the other sensebases. A sense object impinges on the > relevant sensebase and thus a sense-cognition arises. This is not > theoretical at all. A rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, when > we compare the duration of rupa and citta. We could not count, of course. > Thus, visible object that has not fallen away but is still there for several > moments, impinges on the eyebase that has not fallen away yet and is still > present, and then several cittas of the eye-door process, including > seeing-consciousness, experience the visible object. When we consider this > we can be amazed that there is such a coincidence of ayatanas, that it is > possible to experience an object. > Manayatana, as you know, includes all cittas. Dhammayatana includes as you > mentioned, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. > You were wondering about dhammarammana and dhammadhatu. These belong to > other classifications, not in the context of ayatanas. Classification of > arammana: here the Buddha teaches about objects that can be experienced. > Dhammarammana : the five sense organs, the subtle rupas, citta, cetasika, > nibbana, concepts. These are the objects only experienced through the > mind-door. The classification of elements, dhatus, here the Buddha teaches > about realities as elements, devoid of self. Dhammadhatu:cetasikas, subtle > rupas and nibbana. Citta is not included here, because cittas have been > classified separately as different elements (seeing-consciousness-element, > etc., mind-element, mano-dhatu, mind-consciousness element, > mano-vi~n~naa.na-dhaatu). Concept is not an element, it is not real in the > ultimate sense. (See ADL Ch 18). > It is helpful to see different subjects of study in their own context. You > mentioned mindfulness of the citta of someone else, as an outward object, > seeing citta in citta, no matter one's own or someone else's. And then under > mental objects, dhammas, seeing the inner and outward ayatanas internally, > and externally. Here again we should beware of the different contexts. There > are inner and outward ayatanas, in the context of ayatanas. There is > awareness of one's own rupa, feeling, citta or dhamma, or those of someone > else, and this is another context, the context of the objects of > mindfulness. > Now coming back to awareness of someone else's citta: this is not restricted > to the special super power of penetrationg someone else's mind. When we > notice someone else's outbreak of anger, the angry voice, this can bring us > back to the reality appearing at the present moment: there can be awareness > of our thinking of his citta as merely a conditioned nama, or of sound, as > only a conditioned element. This helps us to become an understanding person, > to be patient. As I understood from A. Sujin's explanations, anything that > appears, even the citta or feeling of someone else can bring us back to the > present reality. The Commentary does not explain about this, but I do not > know the subcommentary. I am glad to hear about additional explanations of > this rather difficult point. Could perhaps your aunt ask A. Sujin again, if > there is an opportunity? > I hope this clarifies a few of your points. > I am reading now the co. to the Sivaka Sutta on kamma and vipaka, and I am > so surprised at what I am reading here. We have to place this sutta in the > context of the 108 kinds of feelings, as one can see. Otherwise we shall not > understand this sutta. I come back later to the Sutta. I must run now!! My > father will come (101 years old) and I have to play Telemann on the tenor > recorder. > Best wishes, > Nina. > #118731 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:17 am Subject: Magnificent is Merit! bhikkhu5 Friends: Magnificent is Merit well done in good time! The Blessed Buddha explained DOING GOOD like this: Here and now the good-doer ever rejoices... Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of good reaps only joy and satisfaction ... So both here and there the wise with merit well done, enjoys the purity of their prior good actions. Dhammapada Illustration 16 Background Story 16 THE PRECIOUS POSSIBILITY Just as one can make many varied bouquets from a single big bunch of flowers, a mortal among the humans can make many kinds of merit by doing various good deeds. Dhammapada Illustration 53 Background Story 53 HONOURABLE Those who honour those worthy of honour: That is the Buddha and his disciples; Who are unhindered, sorrowless, and fearless, finders of Nibbāna, the merit gained from such worthy and well directed honour cannot be estimated by anyone... Dhammapada Illustration 195-196 Background Story 195+196 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #118732 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:26 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Now stop saying I want my mommy - even if it's true - so I don't have the urge to do bad things like writing long posts, okay? You want to support the arising of kusala citta, don't you? > This frigging sucks. I am the one who created the Dhamma mommy concept and now you have very smoothly managed to appropriate it. Nice job buddy. Watch your back. It's Scott's fault. Go check all the stuff he said about me wanting a wet nurse, wanting to be spoon-fed etc. I think he's projecting, so maybe your "mommy" beef is with him. I am cool with you having the mommy thing going for you - I don't want to steal your portfolio... > By the way, part 3 of the talk I mentioned contains even more about nimitta. > Also part 1 of the Feb 6 discussion. Thanks, Phil. When I recover from the current spate of Dhamma exhaustion I will check it out. < ......Mama.....? > Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #118733 From: Vince Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Nina you wrote: > N: paccekabuddhas have eradicated all defilements, have reached > arahatship. But they do not have the ability to teach the eightfold > Path, not to the same extent as the sammaasambuddha. They teach siila. my doubt was about people who can reach arhatship following the paccekabuddha way without become a monk. Because here the Buddha says "a person living alone is said to be a monk": "A person living in this way — even if he lives near a village, associating with monks & nuns, with male & female lay followers, with kings & royal ministers, with sectarians & their disciples — is still said to be living alone. A person living alone is said to be a monk. Why is that? Because craving is his companion, and it has been abandoned by him. Thus he is said to be a person living alone." ** SN 35.63 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.063.than.html maybe the intention of these words is to include more people besides bhikkhus, although I don't know Pali to tune deeper :( What do you think about that text? best Vince. #118734 From: Vince Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email sorry, just I'm reading now the Walshe translation and it's quite different, using "monks" for the subject of the same phrase http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.063.wlsh.html Then: *Thanissaro: "A person living in this way — even if he lives near a village,.." *Walshe: "And a monk so dwelling, Migajaala, even though he may live near a village..." ... it's confusing :( #118735 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob > > By the way, part 3 of the talk I mentioned contains even more about nimitta. > > Also part 1 of the Feb 6 discussion. > > Thanks, Phil. When I recover from the current spate of Dhamma exhaustion I will check it out. > Ph: The topic continues right off the bat in the discussion that follows, Feb.15. If you' re interested in how sati develops, definitely recommended. Metta, Phil #118736 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:03 pm Subject: Lost in the nimitta anupinacciya? philofillet Hi all I heard Sarah say "usually if we haven't heard anything about Dhamma we're just lost in the" - and this is the part I neef help with " nimitta anupinacciya" or something lije tgat. In another talk I heard the same word cone up and she said it was something about details, so I guess it's maybe the details the mind latches on to and sucks on out of the visible object, the leech in the crocodile and leech simile in Vism (or some other commentary.) If that rings a bell can anybody tell me the exact term so can look into it further? Thanks, Metta, Phil #118737 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2011 2:58:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, all, >HCW: When water is apprehended, there is no oxygen and no hydrogen >apprehended. This is a case of conditions coming together to >produce something new: two conditions yielding a 3rd. >================================================== Right. But the third one is qualitatively different, and is more than mere sum of the parts. It is not like heterogeneous mixture, but a homogeneous one. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Experientially, it is an entirely new phenomenon. Likewise when sticks are rubbed together: The experienced conditioning factors are motion and pressure, and the conditioned resultant phenomenon is heat. As regards the compound H2O, that is a useful item of the predictive theory called "chemistry," the theory itself a dependable and useful "story". The issue of the nature of science is part of the "world view" presumption to which I was referring before. You take "science" as expressive of reality, while I take it to be a disciplined methodology for creating a constantly changing body of tentatively useful predictive stories (predictive of experience). -------------------------------------------- >HCW: What you say cannot be done does in fact happen at death. >===================================================== Body dies and mind conditions the next instance of mind in another body. That consciousness doesn't travel from one body to another. That instance of consciousness ceases with that body. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I said nothing of "a soul leaving a body" and being plunked down somewhere new. I'm speaking of the dissolution of the khandhas during the dying process. ----------------------------------------------- Consciousness (Vinnana) cannot occur separately from feeling (vedana) for example. And these are not physically separate from perception (sanna). ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Co-occurrence does not imply indistinguishability. Sometimes co-occurring phenomena are inseparable, but in other cases they are separable. (Getting back to the chemistry story, electrolysis will separate oxygen from hydrogen in water.) ----------------------------------------------- "For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."" - MN43 -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, these are items that consistently co-occur and function in concert. But that fact does not imply the existence of a "whole" or "amalgam" that is a single feeling-perceiving-cognizing phenomenon (or, as some are wont to say, "a reality"). ------------------------------------------------------ Furthermore the boundary between feeling & consciousness is not that clear cut: "'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.'" ...It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor pain." - MN43 -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't know why you think this quote that describes what vedana does implies the lack of clear-cut distinguishing of vedana from vi~n~nana. Vi~n~nana is knowing something (merely) as object, whereas vedana is affectively evaluating it. (And sa~n~na is recognizing it - or marking it for future recognition). These are three distinguishable mental operations, with vedana and sa~n~na dependent, of course, on current vi~n~nana. ------------------------------------------------------- What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain. - MN140 ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: That would be a subsequent act of consciousness. At time A there is being conscious of a stinging sensation in the body, feeling of it as unpleasant, and recognizing it as pain. Then, immediately following this, at time B, there is taking of that just-passed (or even still present) pain as object by a subsequent act of consciousness and reacting to it with aversion. ---------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118738 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/14/2011 3:14:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, all, >HCW:I prefer (for myself) to drop talk of "thoughts", "concepts", >and > "conceptual" as much as possible. What is going on in any >such >case is THINKING, a mental process. Whenever one thinks about >anything, cittas included, it is a matter of thinking - period. >================================== What is the difference between thinking about "citta" and about "a tree", for example. In both cases it is thinking. In both cases it apprehends what you call "nimitt". ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. --------------------------------------------- It is interesting that in the suttas the Buddha freely and very often uses concepts and even includes them in satipatthana. They are said to lead to fulfillment of satipatthana which results in Nibbana. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: So? We live in a mind-constructed "world". ---------------------------------------------- Even the five aggregates is a conceptual scheme as it refers to five groups in general. Group (or aggregate) is not an "ultimate reality". It is more of an indexical term. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Okay. :-) ------------------------------------------------ With best wishes, Alex ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118739 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lost in the nimitta anupinacciya? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 15-okt-2011, om 14:03 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I heard Sarah say "usually if we haven't heard anything about > Dhamma we're just lost in the" - and this is the part I neef help > with " nimitta anupinacciya" or something lije tgat. > ----- N: Nimitta and anuvya~ncana: the outward appearance and the details of things. This occurs a lot in the suttas. We are lost in stories, persons, etc. Unmindful. Here the meaning of nimitta is not sa"nkhaara nimitta we have been studying. Before I gave you three different meanings in different contexts. The third one is the mental image of the samatha meditation subject. The outward appearance and the details of things, this happens all the time, even now. Good to remember! ----- Nina. #118740 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:17 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...And vipassana would be the interest level - the dawning of a new experience of understanding at a new level of panna." Scott: If you could clarify this 'a new experience of understanding' thing - what is an 'experience of understanding?' The implication is that this somehow becomes a 'conscious experience' for 'you.' It seems to me that the 'meditator' contingent is an 'experience'-seeking one. Scott. #118741 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:57 am Subject: Re: Lost in the nimitta anupinacciya? philofillet Hi Nina > N: Nimitta and anuvya~ncana: the outward appearance and the details > of things. This occurs a lot in the suttas. We are lost in stories, > persons, etc. Ok, thank you. Taught iften in SN 35, in the context of guarding the sense doors. The sign and the detailed features, for example, the one we discussed the other day. he saw a set of bones walk by. The hands, eyes. lips of the woman would have been the anuvyancana, but not for him. For us, always anuvyancana, we latch onto one part of visible object. don't see all of it (I think I heard the other day.) and are fascinated by details. Trying to train the mind to stop at the seen, natural that earnest people are attracted to the idea of doing so, alas it cannot be by trying,, by striving in that way...thus we hear we must be courageous, and honest about how deep avijja is, begin again and again to consider seeing and visible object, you have done so for 40 years, much patience and courage, I think. Metta, Phil Unmindful. Here the meaning of nimitta is not > sa"nkhaara nimitta we have been studying. Before I gave you three > different meanings in different contexts. The third one is the mental > image of the samatha meditation subject. > The outward appearance and the details of things, this happens all > the time, even now. Good to remember! > > ----- > Nina. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #118742 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Re: Lost in the nimitta anupinacciya? scottduncan2 Phil, P: "...Trying to train the mind to stop at the seen, natural that earnest people are attracted to the idea of doing so, alas it cannot be by trying,, by striving in that way..." Scott: Agreed. The seen is overlain by the thought about so rapidly as to be instantaneous. The idea of 'training the mind' is really quite problematic. Those who believe in 'mind-training' seem to conceive of a different sort of 'mind' than citta. This 'mind' seems to amount to that of which one is 'conscious' at any given 'moment.' This 'mind' would represent a much larger, much more compromised 'segment' of 'experience' than 'the seen' as to be entirely of a scale much larger and more gross than 'the seen.' Such a 'mind' is always behind 'the seen' or 'the heard' or whatever and hence, any so-called 'training' would have to be so much post-hoc thought. Phenomenological referents are unreliable. 'Experience' is illusory. Scott. #118743 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:09 am Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta philofillet Hi Scott Since my original title contains an incorrect stab at a Pali term, I will change the title. > The seen is overlain by the thought about so rapidly as to be instantaneous. The idea of 'training the mind' is really quite problematic. Those who believe in 'mind-training' seem to conceive of a different sort of 'mind' than citta. Phil: And of course a reading of suttas in translation without understanding of Abhidhamma gives credence to the idea of striving as they do or write about doung. > This 'mind' seems to amount to that of which one is 'conscious' at any given 'moment.' This 'mind' would represent a much larger, much more compromised 'segment' of 'experience' than 'the seen' as to be entirely of a scale much larger and more gross than 'the seen.' Such a 'mind' is always behind 'the seen' or 'the heard' or whatever and hence, any so-called 'training' would have to be so much post-hoc thought. Ph: This is intetesting. Of course you know you are inviting a lot more debate but I think it seems to be time for you to do that. > Phenomenological referents are unreliable. Ph: I agree. Just a lot of thinking disguised as something more direct and therefore valuable as far as I can..um, think. Of course hearing people's ideas on the internet is bound to add to that impression, everything must be intellectualuzed even more than what is going on in mind door process when not trying to explain explicitly, I guess. Enter The Alex? Metta, Phil Metta, Phil > 'Experience' is illusory. > > Scott. > #118744 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:15 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (117788) Finally getting around to answering your requests for further explanation to an earlier post of yours. Sorry about the delay, but I see you've been kept busy enough in the meantime! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > [J:] But that thinking (or speculation) seems to ignore the fact that there is no insight to shine unless it has already been developed (i.e., outside the context of the hindrances being suppressed by jhana). > > [RE:] Don't understand this assertion. If the hindrances are suppressed in jhana, it is during or immediately after that time that the insight based on that suppression is able to develop. > =============== J: There is no such thing in the texts as insight that is 'based on suppression of the hindrances'. Any panna that may arise, whether at a time of suppression of hindrances or otherwise, can only be of whatever level as has already been developed. Insight (panna), like any other wholesome quality, develops by its occurrence coupled with recognition of the benefit or advantage of its occurrence. The idea that it will occur more frequently, or in a stronger form, if certain practices are carried out is not a message contained in the teachings. > > =============== > > J: The only possibility of there being "purified cittas, rich in panna" is if such purification and panna has already been developed -- that is to say, in other (non-jhana) contexts. > > [RE:] Again, I don't see the basis for saying this. Please explain. > =============== J: Same point as above. Cittas cannot be 'rich in panna' unless and until panna has developed to a high degree. That development occurs only gradually over time. And it is panna that develops, rather than panna being developed by (the stream of consciousness known as) you or me. The conditions for its development are its arising in response to the teachings being heard and reflected upon. And neither the time of its arising nor the dhamma that is to be its object can be chosen or indeed even induced by any directed activity on our part. > =============== > > J: By 'words of the Buddha' here are you referring to the description of Right Concentration? If so, that description does not speak about an 'order of practice', does it. > > [RE:] The movement thtrough the jhanas from 1-4 is an orderly progression based on each preceding jhana. Buddha speaks of them in that order and explains how they move deeper from one jhana to the next. Indeed, he does speak of an order of practice in that sense. > =============== J: Not sure if you have a particular text in mind here but, obviously, the 4th jhana must be preceded by the 3rd, and so on. Is this what you mean by an 'order of practice'? If so, what is being described is actually an order of *occurrence*. > =============== > > [J:] It merely confirms that at moments of enlightenment, concentration of the level of jhana is present. > > [RE:] That is not how I understand his definite statements, working through the jhanas in order, and asserting that the fourth jhana is the completion of that sequence, as quoted above. > =============== J: What is described is the succession from one jhana to the next. The connotation of 'working through' is your own gloss, I think. What particular words in the passage convey to you that particular connotation? > =============== > > [J:] (Would you apply the same 'order of practice' construction/interpretation to the other 7 path factors? I don't think so :-)) > > [RE:] Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration may be unique in being a direct part of developmental practice. > =============== J: So you would single out 2 of the 8 path factors as being different from the rest. I think that should cause you to question whether your conception of the path factors. What actual role do you see for the other 6, then? Jon #118745 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:21 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (and Phil) (117836) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Phil. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > You do agree that the idea of people simply striving by meditating is, in itself, wrong, and kusala dhammas must be involved, right? Short answer, Rob, please! :) > > I would not make the first statement, because I would say that it is right to engage in meditation as part of Dhamma practice, but I would agree that one must develop kusala cittas in order for it to be part of the path, and that one must guard against [with sati as it develops] the accumulation of akusala factors in one's practice. > > I do not have an all-or-nothing view. I think that when one starts practice, there are going to be many akusala cittas, including akusala cetana, and all of that has to be worked through. How is it worked through? As one practices and develops mindfulness, citta becomes more adept at "guarding against" akusala, and kusala is more likely to be promoted and developed. It's a gradual process, and one cannot start out perfect in order to avoid akusala; that's not how it works, but the meditation process with the right motives will develop more kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna. > =============== J: You say that "the meditation process with the right motives will develop more kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna". This to me is really a kind of faith in the efficacy of 'practice', or the idea that by undertaking certain activities, with the 'sincere' aim of following the path, kusala cittas will eventually prevail over the (currently more numerous) akusala ones. This is to be contrasted with the idea that kusala develops as and when it actually arises (which, as we know from our own experience, it does do from time to time, although not necessarily when think it might). Trying to induce kusala to arise in place of akusala by directing attention in certain ways is a different notion altogether. Jon #118746 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:26 am Subject: Vinnana vs vedana truth_aerator Hi Howard, all, >A: "'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.'" > ...It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor >pain." - MN43 > -------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: I don't know why you think this quote that describes what >vedana does implies the lack of clear-cut distinguishing of vedana >from vi~n~nana. >================ Because they are both said to feel pleasure, pain, neither. I've thought that vinnana simply 'knows' or is aware while the feeling feels. So what is the big difference between vedana feeling pleasure, for example, and vinnana feeling pleasure? >HCW: Vi~n~nana is knowing something (merely) as object, whereas >vedana is affectively evaluating it. >======================= As I understand it, it is sankhara (volition) that has intentions and intentional responce. Vedana, as I understand is never the leader in reaction toward something. Sankhara is the actual aggregate that intends and can like or dislike something. Sankhara produces kamma, not vedana. With best wishes, Alex #118747 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:35 am Subject: K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) epsteinrob Hi Phil, and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > By the way, part 3 of the talk I mentioned contains even more about nimitta. > > > Also part 1 of the Feb 6 discussion. > > > > Thanks, Phil. When I recover from the current spate of Dhamma exhaustion I will check it out. > > > Ph: The topic continues right off the bat in the discussion that follows, Feb.15. If you're interested in how sati develops, definitely recommended. Thanks Phil. I started listening to the beginning [file 1] of Feb. 6, 2006, and it's really excellent material, an excellent discussion. Some of the ideas that are standing out as the participants discuss nimitta: They do refer to both nimitta and concepts as "shadows of realities;" and that nimitta is used to stand both for the illusory idea that what one is presently seeing *is* the current reality, when it fact it has already fallen away, AND the conceptual realities that we assume are really there, such as the other people in the room. Then K. Sujin speaks about different levels of nimitta, some more conceptually based, and others more closely approximating the real dhammas arising and falling - at least that's how I grasped it at the moment. K. Sujin: "When we refer to what arises and falls as not arising and falling at all, that is nimitta." K. Sujin: "This whole life is like a dream. [Someone in the group:] "But it seems nice." K. Sujin: "It seems nice, but it is gone." I like that. K. Sujin seems to always cut indulgence and fantasy off at the root. It leaves an empty space where there is a sense of nothing being there; and that sense of an empty space I think is the mind realizing that what usually fills the space conceptually doesn't really exist. Thanks again, Phil. Great stuff. More later. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #118748 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:38 am Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta philofillet Hi again > Ph: This is intetesting. Of course you know you are inviting a lot more debate but I think it seems to be time for you to do that BTW, thanks for all the questions you asked to Rob, I think that was a helpful method, socratic? Scottratic? Anyone reading them could reflect... Metta, Phil #118749 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:44 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...And vipassana would be the interest level - the dawning of a new experience of understanding at a new level of panna." > > Scott: If you could clarify this 'a new experience of understanding' thing - what is an 'experience of understanding?' The implication is that this somehow becomes a 'conscious experience' for 'you.' It seems to me that the 'meditator' contingent is an 'experience'-seeking one. I think you're misinterpreting the idea of "experience" and "experiencing." Citta is the experiencing element. It is spoken of as experiencing all the time. I quoted to you from Nina's Abhidhamma in Everyday Life where she talks about citta experiencing various sorts of objects, etc., etc., but for some reason you keep being very suspicious of this word when I use it. When I talk about experiencing or an experience, I am talking about those things which occur either to the senses or to the mind - to citta - and so it is always going to be a dhamma, an object of the senses and/or an object of citta, which citta experiences. When I say "a new experience of understanding" what I mean in that case is that vipassana is a new level of panna. Vipassana is an insight moment, or moments, and at that moment of vipassana there is a new understanding, a higher level of panna, which is taking place for the first time. I am trying to describe what, in my understanding, is the difference between panna in general, and vipassana in particular. You know that panna can be of different levels and have different degrees of clarity. Well, I am seeing vipassana as the moment in which panna climbs the ladder from its previous level to its new level. It is in fact a moment of insight, when citta suddenly realizes a new level of understanding. As far as "experience" goes, at that moment of insight citta is going to 'experience' that new level of panna. Vipassana adds new insight to panna at that moment. Vipassana is a form of panna, as you have pointed out, but it is panna making a new discovery. Each of the vipassana nanas is going to be a new higher level experience, where the panna is more refined and more clear. So vipassana is very much like the ladder that panna climbs to reach complete understanding. Of course these all occur in individual moments when vipassana arises, but each time it increases the understanding of panna from what it understood prior to vipassana occuring. I hope that makes it more clear. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118750 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:45 am Subject: K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi Rob E Great, I'm glad you found it helpful. Yes, A Sujin really cuts to the chase. Thanks for the excerpts, and your thoughts. Metta, Phil #118751 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:31 am Subject: Open-handed Generosity Smiles :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: The 10 Contemplations is Buddhist Routine! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus & friends: There is one contemplation, which when often practised and developed leads to the complete turning away from the world, to detachment, to stilling, to ceasing, to Peace , to final penetrating knowledge, to Enlightenment , and thus to Nibbâna ... Any Noble Disciple who by progress have understood the Dhamma dwells frequently in this state. Which is that unique contemplation? It is reflecting over the qualities of own charity exactly like this: A Noble Disciple reviews & recollects his own generosity Câga thus: Truly, blessed am I, highly lucky: Among beings all polluted by evil, stingy and mean niggardliness, I am living with a mind freed from avarice, open-handed, liberal, in high-minded largesse, inviting all beggars, always rejoicing in giving & sharing all I have with others! Source: AN 6:10 <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #118752 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:10 am Subject: K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi again Rob (and Nina) I just listened again, a bit. I like thus: "Without reality arising, can there be concept?" I think instead of worrying too much about whether it is direct cgaracteristic of reality or nimitta of reality, it is maybe best to stick to cgaracteristic of what us seen, heard etc. Otherwise we can get lost in more and mire thinking. " Whatever appears" , good enough. Nina, I heard in a talk from 2006, you said you don't like nimitta, you wanted the reality, I think this was maybe because A Sujin was talking about nimitta much more than before. May I ask how you feel now about nimitta? Metta, Phil #118753 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:39 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I think you're misinterpreting the idea of 'experience' and 'experiencing.' Citta is the experiencing element...When I talk about experiencing or an experience, I am talking about those things which occur either to the senses or to the mind - to citta - and so it is always going to be a dhamma, an object of the senses and/or an object of citta, which citta experiences..." Scott: I am suspicious for one reason: Despite being able to say the above, you still maintain a belief that you can sit down on a cushion and somehow 'practice' to bring the above to pass. Do you claim to able to be 'conscious' of a moment of consciousness - as defined in the Abhidhamma? You are using the language but if you think that you can 'practice' it willfully, then this arouses a great deal of suspicion. What exactly occurs in your 'practice' that would allow you to say you have apprehended the above? So, again, as much as you hate it, you would need to clarify your idiosyncratic use of the terms 'senses,' 'mind,' etc. I hold that, given your belief in 'practice' you cannot possibly be using these terms as they are meant in the Abhidhamma. R: "...Well, I am seeing vipassana as the moment in which panna climbs the ladder from its previous level to its new level. It is in fact a moment of insight, when citta suddenly realizes a new level of understanding..." Scott: I imagine that when you say 'citta suddenly realizes a new level of understanding' that you are talking about some sort of 'conscious' experience of 'understanding.' I would suggest that this would be imperceptible to the 'experiencing I.' R: "...Vipassana adds new insight to panna at that moment. Vipassana is a form of panna, as you have pointed out, but it is panna making a new discovery..." Scott: I did not point out that 'vipassanaa is a form of pa~n~naa.' Pa~n~naa, *at the level of vipassanaa-~naa.na*, is still pa~n~naa - the same mental factor with the same characteristic. R: "...it increases the understanding of panna from what it understood prior to vipassana occuring..." Scott: Do you mean that pa~n~naa is developed? Scott. #118754 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:29 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...This is interesting. Of course you know you are inviting a lot more debate but I think it seems to be time for you to do that..." Scott: I don't think so. I see things as do Jon, Sarah, Nina, et al (although with much less clarity). The only way in which we differ is in our divergent styles of discourse. I think that each time anyone here, who understands the Dhamma similarly, writes from that perspective, 'practitioners' will have to 'debate' since they come from an entirely different perspective altogether. Every expression of the so-called 'DSG' point-of-view is a direct challenge to those who believe that 'practice' is possible in the way they can barely describe. If you'll look at both of Jon's recent replies to Rob E., for example, you'll see the very same 'inviting of debate.' Scott. #118755 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:15 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: I don't think so. I see things as do Jon, Sarah, Nina, et al (although with much less clarity). The only way in which we differ is in our divergent styles of discourse. > Ph: That's true. Personally I welcome the arrival of your more demanding style, it's good if people are pushed harder to explain just what their understanding and practice of meditation is, in as real terms as possible. Metta, Phil #118756 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:18 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...Personally I welcome the arrival of your more demanding style, it's good if people are pushed harder to explain just what their understanding and practice of meditation is, in as real terms as possible." Scott: I agree with us. Down with Ambiguity and Rhetoric! Scott. #118757 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I think you're misinterpreting the idea of 'experience' and 'experiencing.' Citta is the experiencing element...When I talk about experiencing or an experience, I am talking about those things which occur either to the senses or to the mind - to citta - and so it is always going to be a dhamma, an object of the senses and/or an object of citta, which citta experiences..." > > Scott: I am suspicious for one reason: Despite being able to say the above, you still maintain a belief that you can sit down on a cushion and somehow 'practice' to bring the above to pass. This is your idea of what I am saying, but is something that I never said. I don't believe you can make anything happen, or that there is a self that controls what arises at any moment. You may still disagree with what I do think happens, but you may as well know what it actually is, so you are not disagreeing with a [ref: pt] straw man. What I think is that sitting and focusing on a meditation object creates conditions for the development of sati. Disagree with this all you like, but it's a belief in practice, rather than a belief in self. They're not the same thing. > Do you claim to able to be 'conscious' of a moment of consciousness - as defined in the Abhidhamma? You are using the language but if you think that you can 'practice' it willfully, then this arouses a great deal of suspicion. What exactly occurs in your 'practice' that would allow you to say you have apprehended the above? I don't use those terms as technically as you, and I don't see them as black-and-white absolute on/off Platonic ideal monads in any case; so your idea that being "conscious" is an absolute is not something I agree with. As usual, I see such qualities as existing on a continuum, not as an absolute perfect little state that is either totally 100% perfect or nonexistent. I just don't think that reality or consciousness work that way. There are gradations, combinations, and degrees, and while Abhidhamma does acknowledge -- and heavily lean on -- such mixed accumulations and conditions, you and some others who talk about them don't seem to acknowledge that. Anyway, long story short - I am not claiming any "higher level" of consciousness, or any level of attainment. So when I say "conscious of" I mean to the extent one is aware, not to the absolute extent, or no extent at all. Citta experiences its object whether it does so perfectly, imperfectly, deludedly, directly, as nimitta, as concept, or somewhere inbetween. No matter what the state of awareness is, one can practice and develop awareness and understanding, even if it is very gradual. To avoid being on the wrong path, or doing this incorrectly, read Buddha and follow the instructions. > So, again, as much as you hate it, you would need to clarify your idiosyncratic use of the terms 'senses,' 'mind,' etc. I hold that, given your belief in 'practice' you cannot possibly be using these terms as they are meant in the Abhidhamma. I don't see it as being very complicated. Sense organ/base/whatever makes contact and experiences visible/audible.../mental object. That is a "sensory experience." What is the big deal? How can I be using that in some incredibly foreign sense to how it is used in Abhidhamma? When I use terms like that, I really don't get your bewilderment. Those are the easy parts. > R: "...Well, I am seeing vipassana as the moment in which panna climbs the ladder from its previous level to its new level. It is in fact a moment of insight, when citta suddenly realizes a new level of understanding..." > > Scott: I imagine that when you say 'citta suddenly realizes a new level of understanding' that you are talking about some sort of 'conscious' experience of 'understanding.' I would suggest that this would be imperceptible to the 'experiencing I.' Who said anything about an experiencing I? You keep assuming the same straw man and inserting him into your considerations. Just face it - I don't believe in the "self," okay? I believe that consciousness experiences things, but there is no one home, just consciousness. If anything, it is you "own-being" types who are sneaking a little self-concept into your dhammas. Take a look at that sometime. Why say "own-being" instead of just "momentary characteristic?" It smacks of self. > R: "...Vipassana adds new insight to panna at that moment. Vipassana is a form of panna, as you have pointed out, but it is panna making a new discovery..." > > Scott: I did not point out that 'vipassanaa is a form of pa~n~naa.' Pa~n~naa, *at the level of vipassanaa-~naa.na*, is still pa~n~naa - the same mental factor with the same characteristic. I'm talking about what it is doing at that moment, and the level of panna, which as you know, is variable. Higher level of vipassana-nana, higher level of panna is reached. Why don't you just acknowledge that this is correct, instead of parsing every word I say? Vipassana may be the same cetasika as panna, which I accept, but the function is specific when you are talking about vipassana. It's not a synonym. > R: "...it increases the understanding of panna from what it understood prior to vipassana occuring..." > > Scott: Do you mean that pa~n~naa is developed? Yes, panna is developed to a higher level of understanding than it had before - like I said. You know there are different levels of panna, and that vipassana "develops" panna to a higher level of understanding, so why are you arguing about it instead of agreeing with me? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118758 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Insight (panna), like any other wholesome quality, develops by its occurrence coupled with recognition of the benefit or advantage of its occurrence. The idea that it will occur more frequently, or in a stronger form, if certain practices are carried out is not a message contained in the teachings. Obviously, I disagree, based on a direct reading of the relevant suttas. > > > =============== > > > J: The only possibility of there being "purified cittas, rich in panna" is if such purification and panna has already been developed -- that is to say, in other (non-jhana) contexts. > > > > [RE:] Again, I don't see the basis for saying this. Please explain. > > =============== > > J: Same point as above. Cittas cannot be 'rich in panna' unless and until panna has developed to a high degree. That development occurs only gradually over time. And it is panna that develops, rather than panna being developed by (the stream of consciousness known as) you or me. That doesn't mean that it's not developed by practices that promote those conditions. I realize you don't believe that, but I don't see any evidence to back up that assertion other than a certain interpretation. No direct sayings of the Buddha state that practice does not develop conditions to develop panna, and in fact many many instances of his encouraging such practice. Saying that one who practiced satipatthana for 7 years, 7 months, 7 weeks or even 7 days, points out that he is giving a time frame for practice and encouraging it to be done, rather than, as you say, depending only on "gradual development" with no practice. I just think a direct reading of the suttas contradicts your assertion about this. The Vism's many detailed systematic programs for development through meditation exercises of various sorts can only be understood as things to be done, not as random examples. I realize that there are some commentaries and subcommentaries that support a no-practice view, but I don't give them the same degree of trust that I give to the suttas. > The conditions for its development are its arising in response to the teachings being heard and reflected upon. And neither the time of its arising nor the dhamma that is to be its object can be chosen or indeed even induced by any directed activity on our part. The teachings are obviously a great cause for understanding and development, but it is not established that such intellectual understanding can create the path by itself. There is nowhere that Buddha says that right understanding by itself creates the path without practice, and just as he says that Dhamma is a great cause of understanding, he also says in many suttas that concrete practice is a great cause of development of the path as well. > > =============== > > > J: By 'words of the Buddha' here are you referring to the description of Right Concentration? If so, that description does not speak about an 'order of practice', does it. > > > > [RE:] The movement thtrough the jhanas from 1-4 is an orderly progression based on each preceding jhana. Buddha speaks of them in that order and explains how they move deeper from one jhana to the next. Indeed, he does speak of an order of practice in that sense. > > =============== > > J: Not sure if you have a particular text in mind here but, obviously, the 4th jhana must be preceded by the 3rd, and so on. Is this what you mean by an 'order of practice'? If so, what is being described is actually an order of *occurrence*. I have quoted the relevant suttas at length in our previous posts. I am sure you know the suttas that describe the progression from one jhana to the next. Buddha doesn't describe then as a mere occurrence but actively praises and promotes them as Right Concentration, a major ingredient of the Noble 8FP. > > =============== > > > [J:] It merely confirms that at moments of enlightenment, concentration of the level of jhana is present. > > > > [RE:] That is not how I understand his definite statements, working through the jhanas in order, and asserting that the fourth jhana is the completion of that sequence, as quoted above. > > =============== > > J: What is described is the succession from one jhana to the next. The connotation of 'working through' is your own gloss, I think. What particular words in the passage convey to you that particular connotation? It looks like you have snipped out the part of the post where I quoted the sutta. I don't have it handy, and it was a while ago, so it is hard for me to reference it directly right now. But the Buddha praises each phase and talks about the benefits therefrom, and describes the 4th jhana as the fulfillment of equanimity and satipatthana. That's a clue, I think, that there is more going on in the jhanas the way Buddha teaches them, than mere jhana-citta, but that they are being used to develop insight, as described in the suttas as well. > > =============== > > > [J:] (Would you apply the same 'order of practice' construction/interpretation to the other 7 path factors? I don't think so :-)) > > > > [RE:] Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration may be unique in being a direct part of developmental practice. > > =============== > > J: So you would single out 2 of the 8 path factors as being different from the rest. I think that should cause you to question whether your conception of the path factors. What actual role do you see for the other 6, then? Each path factor obviously plays an important distinct role. I'm not claiming to be an expert, just going by what I read and from whatever practice I am familiar with. But I think you can deduce the role of each factor by what Buddha says about them and the area that each one impacts. Obviously, certain factors like Right Livelihood would have to do with livelihood, as it says. That is not a meditation factor, but one that has to do with action in the world. Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness are described in the suttas as the fruit of meditative practice, however you interpret this. To me they are clearly developed through the practices described in the corresponding suttas, the anapanasati and satipatthana being the chief among them. Right understanding seems to have to do both with understanding Dhamma on many levels as well as understanding the path and the true reality of the moment, so it has aspects that impact both discernment of realities and understanding correct concepts of Dhamma. Any way, I know my opinions are not based on being any kind of expert, but many aspects of these things are clearly spoken about in sutta and also are described and discussed in other places as well. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118759 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:13 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob HI Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: You say that "the meditation process with the right motives will develop more kusala, more sati and lead to occurrence of vipassana and development of panna". > > This to me is really a kind of faith in the efficacy of 'practice', or the idea that by undertaking certain activities, with the 'sincere' aim of following the path, kusala cittas will eventually prevail over the (currently more numerous) akusala ones. That is exactly right. It also takes faith to take the contrasting position - that the path arises by itself with no conventional practices or efforts. That is not evidenced by anything other than faith that it will occur, and one's sense that the logic of the commentaries that promote this view make sense and are correct. But there's no evidence in the suttas for this view, in fact it is flatly contradicted by the Buddha on many occasions. My faith in practice is based on what the Buddha actually said, not what I think he said. If Buddha were to say directly to you today, "Strive with all your might; practice without cease as if your hair were on fire," which are only slight paraphrases of what he said, and very close, you would be obliged to say to him, "That is wrong. One shouldn't practice in that way, because the path factors only develop gradually without any control." The only way you can reconcile the "no-practice/no-effort" view with that of the Buddha is to interpret what he says as having the opposite meaning of the actual words, and I don't know what justification there is for doing that. When Buddha says that the 4th jhana is the *culmination* of both equanimity *and satipatthana,* which I quoted and cited to you and which you seem to have mysteriously snipped instead of addressing, you don't accept the statement, you say it's not true, and somehow you interpret it that this is not what the Buddha meant. But it *is* what he said, and there's little room for claiming that he meant something completely different. > This is to be contrasted with the idea that kusala develops as and when it actually arises (which, as we know from our own experience, it does do from time to time, although not necessarily when think it might). > > Trying to induce kusala to arise in place of akusala by directing attention in certain ways is a different notion altogether. It is a notion promoted, lauded and instructed in great explicit detail by the Buddha in sutta. You can reinterpret it to mean something else, based on a prior belief that Buddha could not mean what he said, but in my view we should listen to the Buddha more carefully, not assign his words a meaning opposed to what he said. What he said is what he taught. It's important to know that there is no self that has any control over the arising of kusala, but we should not confuse that with the Buddha's instructions on meditation. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118760 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:14 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta epsteinrob Hi Guys. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Phil, > > Ph: "...Personally I welcome the arrival of your more demanding style, it's good if people are pushed harder to explain just what their understanding and practice of meditation is, in as real terms as possible." > > Scott: I agree with us. Down with Ambiguity and Rhetoric! Hooray for Dogma! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118761 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta epsteinrob Hi Phil, Scott, pt and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Scott > > Scott: I don't think so. I see things as do Jon, Sarah, Nina, et al (although with much less clarity). The only way in which we differ is in our divergent styles of discourse. > > > Ph: That's true. Personally I welcome the arrival of your more demanding style, it's good if people are pushed harder to explain just what their understanding and practice of meditation is, in as real terms as possible. Well if that's the case, we should also in fairness have some detailed personal descriptions from the 'no-practice' camp explaining exactly what kinds of understandings they are developing through considering the Dhamma, and how this affects their experience of spontaneous kusala arising in their lives. Let's demand that everyone get very personal and disclose whether they are experiencing kusala or not from their practice or lack thereof. So far only pt has explained how his understanding of the Dhamma affects his responses and experiences in real-life situations, and it was very illuminating to me. You have also done this in the past, Phil, when you were still an advocate of promoting "kusala behavior" and eliminating as much akusala as possible through your actions and choices. Now that you are taking this new tack, I think that you and Scott should have a turn right now at disclosing the influence of Dhamma in your personal lives in great detail for everyone to inspect and comment upon, since you are both so demanding of others. We can also have an on-list contest to see whether meditators or non-meditators are having a higher percentage of kusala arise on a daily basis, to be judged by a panel that is divided half and half. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118762 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinnana vs vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/15/2011 7:26:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, all, >A: "'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.'" > ...It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor >pain." - MN43 > -------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: I don't know why you think this quote that describes what >vedana does implies the lack of clear-cut distinguishing of vedana >from vi~n~nana. >================ Because they are both said to feel pleasure, pain, neither. I've thought that vinnana simply 'knows' or is aware while the feeling feels. So what is the big difference between vedana feeling pleasure, for example, and vinnana feeling pleasure? >HCW: Vi~n~nana is knowing something (merely) as object, whereas >vedana is affectively evaluating it. >======================= As I understand it, it is sankhara (volition) that has intentions and intentional responce. Vedana, as I understand is never the leader in reaction toward something. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: What of it? I never said anything about vedana being the leader in anything. I said that vedana is affective evaluation of an object; i.e., evaluating it as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral. What has that got to do with cetana or reaction? Nothing. (And nothing claimed by me.) --------------------------------------------------- Sankhara is the actual aggregate that intends and can like or dislike something. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. Again - so what? I never said that vedana intends or likes or dislikes. Why do you bring this up? I feel like I'm in the midst of an Alice in Wonderland story! ;-) --------------------------------------------------- Sankhara produces kamma, not vedana. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Kamma, i.e. volition/intention, is indeed included in the sankharakkhandha, and vedana is not. Again, so what?? Who says otherwise. The relevant part of our conversation went as follows, and it nowhere suggests that I view vedana as a sankharic operation: **************************** You speaking, Alex: Furthermore the boundary between feeling & consciousness is not that clear cut: "'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.'" ...It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor pain." - MN43 -------------------------------------------------------- HCW speaking: I don't know why you think this quote that describes what vedana does implies the lack of clear-cut distinguishing of vedana from vi~n~nana. Vi~n~nana is knowing something (merely) as object, whereas vedana is affectively evaluating it. (And sa~n~na is recognizing it - or marking it for future recognition). These are three distinguishable mental operations, with vedana and sa~n~na dependent, of course, on current vi~n~nana. ------------------------------------------------------- You speaking, Alex: What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain. - MN140 ---------------------------------------------------- HCW speaking: That would be a subsequent act of consciousness. At time A there is being conscious of a stinging sensation in the body, feeling of it as unpleasant, and recognizing it as pain. Then, immediately following this, at time B, there is taking of that just-passed (or even still present) pain as object by a subsequent act of consciousness and reacting to it with aversion. [CURRENT NOTE: This paragraph directly above speaks of vedana in operation at time A, feeling a stinging sensation (rupa) as unpleasant, and sa~n~na recognizing it as pain. But vedana is not mentioned at all at the subsequent time B. It is at time B that aversive reaction (sankhara) occurs. I was not confusing anything.] ***************************** With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118763 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:58 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta philofillet Hi Rob E > > Well if that's the case, we should also in fairness have some detailed personal descriptions from the 'no-practice' camp explaining exactly what kinds of understandings they are developing through considering the Dhamma, and how this affects their experience of spontaneous kusala arising in their lives. Let's demand that everyone get very personal and disclose whether they are experiencing kusala or not from their practice or lack thereof. Ph: No, that wouldn't be wise, you know the adze handle simile. Since you guys believe in the wisdom of specific methods, I think it places a duty on you to either defend them in the face of scrutiny or remain silent about them when you are at DSG, which as you know is not a group that was founded in the spirit of "get up a little earlier every day and meditate, urban professional, or you will regret it." As for my previous beliefs, you can keep mentionning them if you want, god knows they are on clear display in past posts and from the talks iin KK this year. but that was then ( and may be again, who knows) this is now. I think I was misled by listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi talks on Majjhima Nikaya, I didn't think such a venerated monk could be wrong. Those talks got me going in a wrong direction. I still value sila, panna and sila support each other. Rob, as I was saying, I want out of this debate and hope to stick to developing my understanding of dhammas. I guess I made a provocative comnent - my bad, serves me right! Metta, Phil Metta, Phil So far only pt has explained how his understanding of the Dhamma affects his responses and experiences in real-life situations, and it was very illuminating to me. You have also done this in the past, Phil, when you were still an advocate of promoting "kusala behavior" and eliminating as much akusala as possible through your actions and choices. Now that you are taking this new tack, I think that you and Scott should have a turn right now at disclosing the influence of Dhamma in your personal lives in great detail for everyone to inspect and comment upon, since you are both so demanding of others. We can also have an on-list contest to see whether meditators or non-meditators are having a higher percentage of kusala arise on a daily basis, to be judged by a panel that is divided half and half. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = > #118764 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:01 pm Subject: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? rjkjp1 Dear technique proponents, I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique for developing vipassana. When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique? robert #118765 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:27 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi robk, > rk: Dear technique proponents, > I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana > sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique for developing vipassana. > When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique? pt: come now robert, the answer of course is that mindfulness strengthened up through meditation practice then carries over into daily life, including toileting, etc. can we now please move on from the bloody method vs no-method, which never really manages to get anywhere in terms of a fruitful discussion, and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or ride ponies? Best wishes pt #118766 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana nilovg Dear Alex, Op 14-okt-2011, om 22:19 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > Aggregate (khandha) is another word for "group". Group as you know > isn't supposed to ultimately exist. > > ""Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or > external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That > is called the consciousness aggregate." > ------- N: What is past, future, present is a conditioned reality. It arises and falls away. For instance, we can say: feeling khandha or vi~naa.na khandha arises and falls away. We can also say: the dhaatu, element, that is feeling and that is citta arises and falls away. I cannot call that a concept. I found some texts in the Visuddhimagga, Ch XXI, and you can see whether you find these clear. ----- Ch XXI, 5. And here the following differences should be understood: the impermanent, and the characteristic of impermanence; the painful, and the characteristic of pain; the not-self, and the characteristic of not-self. 6. Herein, the five aggregates are impermanent. Why? Because they rise and fall and change, or because of their non-existence after having been. Rise and fall and change are the characteristic of impermanence; or mode alteration, in other words, non-existence after having been [is the characteristic of impermanence].4 ------ footnote 4 (from the Tiika: 4. “These modes, [that is, the three characteristics,] are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabhāva- dhammā); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (paññatti-visesā) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates” (Vism-mháč­ 825). --------- Vis. 7. Those same five aggregates are painful because of the words, “What is impermanent is painful” (S III 22). Why? Because of continuous oppression. The mode of being continuously oppressed is the characteristic of pain. 8. Those same five aggregates are not-self because of the words, “What is painful is not-self” (S III 22). Why? Because there is no exercising of power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to the exercise of power is the characteristic of not- self. ------- N: The three general characteristics are not applied to concepts. ----------- > A: When Buddha said "conscious aggregate" He didn't mean a > presently arisen specific single consciousness. Furthermore future/ > past consciousness doesn't exist, so how can it be paramattha? It > doesn't exist. ------- N: It is past, but this does not mean that it has never been. It is future, but sure to come, by conditions. Kamma is committed at present, and the cetanaa cetasika falls away with the citta. It is past but it can produce result later on. In the form of vipaakacitta in the future. I think that citta that has fallen away does not change into a concept. The sensuous desire, lobha, that has fallen away is accumulated as a latent tendency, that is not a concept. ------- > > A: Since citta cannot know its own characteristic (such as anicca), > whenever we talk about consciousness being anicca, we are refering > to an idea of consciousness that is anicca. ----- N: In a following process there can be awareness and understanding of a previous citta that has fallen away, is aniccaa. ------- > A: One specific instance of citta doesn't last long enough to be > itself examined in detail. We examine, what Howard like to call, > nimitta. Not a real thing in the present. ------- N: Sa"nkhaara nimitta is nimitta of a reality. We do not have to think of nimitta, there can be awareness of characteristics of citta, feeling, etc. -------- Nina. #118767 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 16-okt-2011, om 2:10 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Nina, I heard in a talk from 2006, you said you don't like nimitta, > you wanted the reality, I think this was maybe because A Sujin was > talking about nimitta much more than before. May I ask how you feel > now about nimitta? ------ N: Useful to hear about it, it reminds us how fast realities arise and fall away. No use to try to catch this one or that one. Main thing: characteristics are appearing, learn more, begin to be aware. I do not think much about nimitta. I do not think much about: this is a concept. Like Howard, somewhat reserved about calling this or that a concept. ------ Nina. #118768 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:57 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi robk, > > > rk: Dear technique proponents, > > I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana > > sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique for developing vipassana. > > When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique? > > > pt: come now robert, the answer of course is that mindfulness strengthened up through meditation practice then carries over into daily life, including toileting, etc. can we now please move on from the bloody method vs no-method, which never really manages to get anywhere in terms of a fruitful discussion, and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or ride ponies? > > Best wishes > pt > Dear Pt sorry my questions dont measure up to your expectations. So that is the final word on dsg about this? I guess I was expecting to much myself. robert #118769 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:14 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi robk, > rk: sorry my questions dont measure up to your expectations. > So that is the final word on dsg about this? I guess I was expecting to much myself. pt: i'm not the final word on dsg. i'm just cranky. and frustrated that you keep asking the similar confrontational question over and over on multiple forums and i've never seen it go anywhere useful. and at the moment we only have robe (and alex in theory, with howard in between somewhere) as active proponents of meditation on dsg and they have their hands full already with scott and phil and might actually gain something from scott's line of enquiry into details, rather than coming back to basic confrontational yes/no argument for meditation. i think i'll have to flip sides now to provide any sort of useful counterargument in favor of the meditator camp. anyway, i find you far more instructive when you draw on your knowledge of the texts than when you return to the basic confrontational argument. long shift, i'm cranky, sorry. Best wishes pt #118770 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:25 pm Subject: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi Nina > N: Useful to hear about it, it reminds us how fast realities arise > and fall away. No use to try to catch this one or that one. Main > thing: characteristics are appearing, learn more, begin to be aware. Ph: This teaching of nimitta helped solve what Jon once called " my problem with Satipatthana." I couldn't understand how there can be awareness of characteristics of a dhamma that rise and fall away of a billionth of a second, now it is clearer. > I do not think much about nimitta. Ph: Interesting to learn about it, but onve kearned no need to keep thinking about it, but if we do, we do. > I do not think much about: this is a concept. Ph: I think A Sujin said we won't truly understand what concepts are until we understand realities, maybe that is your point. The important thing is developing awareness of characteristics of realities. But for me it was important, very important, to realize that people can only be experienced as concepts, we can't see a person, we can't hear a person. Is Nina seeing, visible object, no. Nina is a concept. "There is no Nina" is the one that I don't think much about myself, we all have different accumulations. Metta, Phil > ------ > Nina. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #118771 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...What I think is that sitting and focusing on a meditation object creates conditions for the development of sati. Disagree with this all you like, but it's a belief in practice, rather than a belief in self. They're not the same thing." Scott: Well said. These are the correct terms to set in opposition to each other - 'belief in practice' and 'belief in self'. They *are* one and the same thing. What do you actually do when you sit and focus on a 'meditation object'? A clear, detailed description ought to prove your case. Just the act of deliberately sitting and 'focusing' in order to 'create conditions for the development of sati' is a pure act of 'self'. You are doing something that is designed to cause a future kusala dhamma to arise. Can it be any more 'self'-directed? It's either wildly mistaken or massively hubristic. It's like saying you know so well what all the conditions must be that you will cause them to occur because of your great understanding and that what ever you do in the name of 'practice' will be correct because you 'belief' in it. Welcome to Olde Tyme Religion. Scott. #118772 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:27 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." Scott: You should start. Scott. #118773 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "... I see such qualities as existing on a continuum, not as an absolute perfect little state that is either totally 100% perfect or nonexistent. I just don't think that reality or consciousness work that way. There are gradations, combinations, and degrees, and while Abhidhamma does acknowledge -- and heavily lean on -- such mixed accumulations and conditions, you and some others who talk about them don't seem to acknowledge that." Scott: You can fudge the Abhidhamma as much as you want but you cannot get around the fact that citta and it's accompanying mental factors arise and fall away one 'moment' at a time. Yes, at each moment there is this variety of which you speak. The various combination of mental factors, whether they are kusala or akusala or neither, the 'level' of development of the functional dhammas do serve to make each moment different. And the field of conditionality is very wide and complicated. Yet, your concept of 'continuum' does not hold. There is only one moment at a time. You are essentially writing Rob's Abhidhamma when you insist on this notion of a continuum. Continua are concepts, not dhammas. I can see why you make this up, though, as it becomes your theoretical justification for praxis. Scott. #118774 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...when I say 'conscious of' I mean to the extent one is aware, not to the absolute extent, or no extent at all..." Scott: This is you starting to describe your 'practice' and define your terms. Good. R: "...Citta experiences its object whether it does so perfectly, imperfectly, deludedly, directly, as nimitta, as concept, or somewhere in between..." Scott: This is you disingenuously using Abhidhamma language as if to put a stamp on what you say. Again, if you claim that you can create conditions for kusala dhammaa to arise, then that is 'self' and you can't hide your claims in little vignettes of Abhidhamma theory just because. Scott. #118775 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/16/2011 6:01:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear technique proponents, I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique for developing vipassana. When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: It's a matter, only, of (non-distracted, i.e., mindful) attention to rupas and namas, attending to what is actually going on, in this case and in all other circumstances, as far as possible. Did you expect something else? (Ritual recitations, perhaps? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ robert ================================ With metta, "Howard, TP" P. S. We haven't talked for a good while, Robert. How is everything? :-) Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118776 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...No matter what the state of awareness is, one can practice and develop awareness and understanding, even if it is very gradual. To avoid being on the wrong path, or doing this incorrectly, read Buddha and follow the instructions." Scott: How does one know what a given 'state of awareness' is when one begins to 'practice'? If the state of awareness doesn't matter, what if it is not of a strength to be able to 'be aware' of where things are at, and what needs development? Do you 'read Buddha' as part of your 'practice' - like before you sit? What 'instruction's are you referring to? What do you do specifically when you are 'practicing' that allows you to know that it is 'awareness', of what 'degree' it is, and how to manipulate conditions further to increase it? You can't disassociate yourself from your claim that you set out to control and create conditions. You can't simply adopt a style of describing your 'practice' as if it is anatta, while out-and-out believing that 'you' can create conditions for kusala yourself. Scott. #118777 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:37 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I don't see it as being very complicated. Sense organ/base/whatever makes contact and experiences visible/audible.../mental object. That is a 'sensory experience.' What is the big deal? How can I be using that in some incredibly foreign sense to how it is used in Abhidhamma? When I use terms like that, I really don't get your bewilderment. Those are the easy parts." Scott: Because anyone can adopt a style of description that mimics the precision of the Abhidhamma (although 'sense organ/base/whatever' is hardly precise, is it?) My 'bewilderment' is non-existent. You believe that by act of will you can make these things happen. Show how you do it. Scott. #118778 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:42 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Who said anything about an experiencing I?...I don't believe in the 'self,' okay? I believe that consciousness experiences things, but there is no one home, just consciousness." Scott: You believe that you can sit and cause conditions to arise by following instructions. That is belief in 'self' plain and simple. If you weren't an advocate of deliberate 'practice' and deliberate 'creation of conditions' then I might take statements like the above seriously. Show how it is not just 'you' by a clear, blow-by-blow description of what you do to create conditions and how these self-created conditions make kusala develop. Scott. #118779 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I'm talking about what it is doing at that moment, and the level of panna, which as you know, is variable. Higher level of vipassana-nana, higher level of panna is reached. Why don't you just acknowledge that this is correct, instead of parsing every word I say? Vipassana may be the same cetasika as panna, which I accept, but the function is specific when you are talking about vipassana. It's not a synonym." Scott: You are not getting it. What you say here is not correct. The mental factor is pa~n~naa. *Vipassanaa is not a cetasika*. Pa~n~naa of a certain level of development functions to penetrate a dhamma and this is known as vipassanaa-~naa.na. R: "...Yes, panna is developed to a higher level of understanding than it had before - like I said. You know there are different levels of panna, and that vipassana 'develops' panna to a higher level of understanding, so why are you arguing about it instead of agreeing with me?" Scott: I am not agreeing with you because you are what I like to call wrong. Precision, Rob. In the above you clearly use 'vipassanaa' as a term that designates a 'practice': 'Vipassana develops pa~n~naa'. You mean to refer to vipassanaa as a 'practice' and suggest that 'doing vipassanaa' is what develops pa~n~naa. The only thing that develops pa~n~naa is the arising of pa~n~naa and, with enough development, it arises at the level of vipassanaa-~naa.na. You can do absolutely nothing to cause or condition the development of pa~n~naa. Scott. #118780 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:58 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi robk, > > > rk: sorry my questions dont measure up to your expectations. > > So that is the final word on dsg about this? I guess I was expecting to much myself. > > pt: i'm not the final word on dsg. i'm just cranky. and frustrated that you keep asking the similar confrontational question over and over on multiple forums and i've never seen it go anywhere useful. ________ Dear Pt thanks for your helpful comments, I will try to drastically limit my input in this area Robert #118781 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) nilovg Dear Phil and Han, Op 16-okt-2011, om 14:25 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Nina is a concept. "There is no Nina" is the one that I don't think > much about myself, we all have different accumulations. ------- N: A coincidence you say this. Last night I read to Lodewijk a passage with these words and, althout he knows all the arguments, has heard them also from me, he just cannot help but feeling irritated. He said, there must be another way of explaining. He would like to hear Han about this point he said, but he is not interested in hearing the same old arguments we all use on dsg. What I think is what you write above: we have different accumulations and the Buddha took care to whom he was talking. Some people may need a different approach, what do you think? Since we cling to the idea of person it is not easy to really, really accept the truth. Even Khemaka who had eradicated the wrong view of self still had clinging to self with conceit, which is more subtle. Only the arahat has eradicated conceit and this is compared to a clean cloth that after having being washed and put in a scented box has no more smell of clinging to self with conceit. ----- Nina. #118782 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:03 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: "...the answer of course is that mindfulness strengthened up through meditation practice then carries over into daily life, including toileting, etc..." Scott: Are you kidding, man? The answer is 'through meditation practice'? Et tu Brute? Scott. #118783 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:06 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Rob K., R: "thanks for your helpful comments, I will try to drastically limit my input in this area" Scott: Hey, I did a runner for the same reason. Diplomacy schmiplomacy. But, coming from the experience of my 'doing-a-runner practice' I've learned that I'll just come back and do it my own way anyhow. Stick around. I could use someone else to take the heat for being crabby. Scott. #118784 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:12 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: "...and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or ride ponies?" Scott: You can't have this discussion with meditators. They believe in a dhamma called 'self'. This is a fundamental basis for their belief in 'practice'. Is 'view' a dhamma? If so, how do you think it influences things like, say, belief in 'practice'? Scott. #118785 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:16 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi robk, > rk: thanks for your helpful comments, I will try to drastically limit my input in this area pt: eh, don't let me tell you what to do. if i could though, then i'd ask for providing more quotes from the commentaries, you're quite excellent there. Best wishes pt #118786 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and pt) - In a message dated 10/16/2011 9:12:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: pt, pt: "...and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or ride ponies?" Scott: You can't have this discussion with meditators. They believe in a dhamma called 'self'. This is a fundamental basis for their belief in 'practice'. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: You might consider being a bit less general. I do meditate (mea culpa!), much as I do eat and defecate and walk and talk, but I do not in the slightest believe in a dhamma called "self". (NB: I cannot write this coherently without saying "You" and "I" - so please don't draw atta-view conclusions from that.) ------------------------------------------------ Is 'view' a dhamma? If so, how do you think it influences things like, say, belief in 'practice'? Scott. ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118787 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Vince, Op 15-okt-2011, om 5:08 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > >> N: paccekabuddhas have eradicated all defilements, have reached >> arahatship. But they do not have the ability to teach the eightfold >> Path, not to the same extent as the sammaasambuddha. They teach >> siila. > > my doubt was about people who can reach arhatship following the > paccekabuddha > way without become a monk. > "....A person living alone is said to be a monk. Why is that? > Because craving is his companion, and it has been abandoned by him. > Thus he is > said to be a person living alone." > ** SN 35.63 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.063.than.html > > > maybe the intention of these words is to include more people > besides bhikkhus, > although I don't know Pali to tune deeper :( > > What do you think about that text? ----- N: My PTS text has: a brother (a monk) is called a dweller alone. The Buddha addresses a monk in this sutta. Thus not: A person living alone is said to be a monk. Because the monk is not overcome by the objects experienced through the six doors and has eradicated craving he is dwelling alone. Quoting a passge I just read to Lodewijk: ------- ------ Nina. > > > best > > > Vince. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > #118788 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:22 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi scott,. > pt: "...the answer of course is that mindfulness strengthened up through meditation practice then carries over into daily life, including toileting, etc..." > > Scott: Are you kidding, man? The answer is 'through meditation practice'? pt: that's the stock meditator answer over the years afaik. and then we get into the stock argument whether the buddha adovacated meditation practice or not. etc. so it doesn't get us anywhere useful. much more useful imo to keep probing the details as you do atm and try to correlate the actual "experiences" to dhammas (or find that there is no correlation - so just delusions). imo that is. don't let me tell you what to do guys. Best wishes pt #118789 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:30 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi scott. > pt: "...and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or ride ponies?" > > Scott: You can't have this discussion with meditators. They believe in a dhamma called 'self'. This is a fundamental basis for their belief in 'practice'. pt: yes, so that's what needs to be pointed out in a way that can be understood experientially - meditators love experiential stuff, so that's the way to steer the explanation in order for it to be releavent - as in understood by the other party. > scott: Is 'view' a dhamma? If so, how do you think it influences things like, say, belief in 'practice'? pt; yes, so point it out in a way that can be understood practically. just calling abhidhamma on authorithy has no practical use because for meditators abhidhamma is not the authority. practice is. doesn't mean that ultimately abhidhamma is not true, but for it to be relevant, you have to relate it to practice. beginning with wrong view, etc. Best wishes pt #118790 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana nilovg Dear Alex, Op 14-okt-2011, om 18:59 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N: The terms that denote these realities do not arise and fall away. > >--------------------------------------------------- > > So whenever one thinks or talks about citta,etc, it is conceptual? -------- N: When saying, it is conceptual?, you mean by 'it' citta? Citta, not a story, is then the object of thinking, but I do not believe that it is helpful to ponder about this. It distracts from knowing the present moment. ------- > > A: How can it be non-conceptually understood? ----- N: Direct awareness and understanding is much clearer. ----- > > A: Also, an interesting note: A singular citta cannot cognize its > own characteristic such as anicca. At least one or more citta- > vitthi process has to occur to cognize previuos citta's > characteristic. So does this mean that cognition of anicca (or > dukkha or anatta) is also conceptual? One never cognizes anicca (or > other characteristic) with the same citta. ------ N: See the Vis. passage I quoted. Nina. #118791 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:40 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi Howard, > > > pt: "...and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually > relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or > ride ponies?" > > Scott: You can't have this discussion with meditators. They believe in a > dhamma called 'self'. This is a fundamental basis for their belief in > 'practice'. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > You might consider being a bit less general. I do meditate (mea > culpa!), much as I do eat and defecate and walk and talk, but I do not in the > slightest believe in a dhamma called "self". (NB: I cannot write this > coherently without saying "You" and "I" - so please don't draw atta-view > conclusions from that.) pt: Howard, it's not about beliefs as conventionally understood, but about actual cetana that arises in the briefest of instances whenever there's an impulsion to fight the present. It's not a matter of thinking or subscribing to some or other school, but a matter of what actually happens. E.g. there's the fundamental problem that if there's a dislike of present (no matter how it's rationalised in subsequent thought processes - need to increase mindfulness, be a better person, etc.) the impulsion is based on lobha/dosa, so not kusala, and automatically nothing to do with sati, panna, etc, even though it "seems" right. Our compass for what's "right" is off. accumulations and all that. Best wishes pt #118792 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sense/mind door appears... nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14-okt-2011, om 14:05 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > When it is said "the sense door appears" it actually means that the > characteristic of the sense door consciousness is experienced, is > that right? And "the mind door appears" is even more difficult to > fathom because we confuse the mind door consciousness which, for > example, also experiences rupa, with thinking, which thinks about > concepts. ------- N: There were questions when Kh Sujin explained vipassanaa ~naa.na. Then it is understood what a mind-door process is. ------ > Ph: I have no understanding whatsover of a mind door which can > experience rupas, but not by thinking about them.. ------ N: Visible object is experienced through the eye-door and after that through the mind-door. It is so fast that it seems as it were to occur in one moment. Kh Sujin would say: just like now. When there is no vipassanaa ~naa.na, the mind-door is concealed, it is all in a flash. It does not appear differently when visible object is experienced through the mind-door. I remember that the late Ven. Dhammadharo asked about this. ----- Nina. #118793 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:40 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: that's the stock meditator answer over the years afaik. and then we get into the stock argument whether the buddha adovacated meditation practice or not. etc. so it doesn't get us anywhere useful. much more useful imo to keep probing the details as you do atm and try to correlate the actual 'experiences' to dhammas (or find that there is no correlation - so just delusions)..." Scott: Yes. All true. As you can see, though, this 'probing for details' with meditators also brings up the 'stock meditator answer.' In this context, however, it is glossed in Abhidhamma language. The meditator believes in the magical notion of 'creating conditions.' The meditator misunderstands conditionality by construing a dhamma called 'self' and imbuing it with the power to cause things to happen. A meditator just says that he or she doesn't belief in self. Ask a meditator to define 'experience' - which you know is meant in ways foreign to the Abhidhamma description of dhammas with characterstics - and you also get nowhere. Scott. #118794 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:48 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi sscott, > pt: that's the stock meditator answer over the years afaik. and then we get into the stock argument whether the buddha adovacated meditation practice or not. etc. so it doesn't get us anywhere useful. much more useful imo to keep probing the details as you do atm and try to correlate the actual 'experiences' to dhammas (or find that there is no correlation - so just delusions)..." > > Scott: Yes. All true. As you can see, though, this 'probing for details' with meditators also brings up the 'stock meditator answer.' In this context, however, it is glossed in Abhidhamma language. The meditator believes in the magical notion of 'creating conditions.' The meditator misunderstands conditionality by construing a dhamma called 'self' and imbuing it with the power to cause things to happen. A meditator just says that he or she doesn't belief in self. Ask a meditator to define 'experience' - which you know is meant in ways foreign to the Abhidhamma description of dhammas with characterstics - and you also get nowhere. pt: yes, well, patience and all that, we have to find a way. look at nina, sarah and jon. they seem to have a good thing going no matter who they're discussing with. if you like, i'll be a meditator for a while, so practice on me for a while. i have a vacation coming in two months, will start meditating again and see if that helps Best wishes pt #118795 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:55 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: "yes, so that's what needs to be pointed out in a way that can be understood experientially - meditators love experiential stuff, so that's the way to steer the explanation in order for it to be releavent - as in understood by the other party." Scott: Meditators fudge everything with this slippery idea of 'experience.' See how Rob E. refuses to commit to an actual description of what he means by experience. He keeps suggesting that everyone knows what 'experience' is and so what is the problem. pt; "yes, so point it out in a way that can be understood practically. just calling abhidhamma on authorithy has no practical use because for meditators abhidhamma is not the authority. practice is. doesn't mean that ultimately abhidhamma is not true, but for it to be relevant, you have to relate it to practice. beginning with wrong view, etc." Scott: I don't have to relate it to 'practice.' There is no such thing. It has to come by asking meditators to define their terms and then comparing these definitions (which one never gets) to the Abhidhamma. I don't have to apologize or down-play the Abhidhamma on a site that holds it as relevant and correct. I learn to clarify my understanding of Abhidhamma by the very discussion I'm having with imprecise, fuzzy-thinking meditators. I don't 'teach' anyone anything and I'm not trying to. I'm not an Abhidhamma salesman. Meditators, on this list, are meditation salesmen and I'm not buying it. Scott. #118796 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:56 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: "yes, well, patience and all that, we have to find a way. look at nina, sarah and jon. they seem to have a good thing going no matter who they're discussing with. if you like, i'll be a meditator for a while, so practice on me for a while. i have a vacation coming in two months, will start meditating again and see if that helps" Scott: Keep to your own style and I'll keep to mine. Who says I don't 'have a good thing going' too? Scott. #118797 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:03 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 HI scott > pt: "yes, well, patience and all that, we have to find a way. look at nina, sarah and jon. they seem to have a good thing going no matter who they're discussing with. if you like, i'll be a meditator for a while, so practice on me for a while. i have a vacation coming in two months, will start meditating again and see if that helps" > > Scott: Keep to your own style and I'll keep to mine. Who says I don't 'have a good thing going' too? pt: well, you're saying you're not getting anywhere with meditators? anyway, looks like my style lately is telling people what to do. that's no good, i'll have to drastically limit my input there as well Best wishes pt #118798 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, pt - In a message dated 10/16/2011 9:40:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard, > > > pt: "...and towards the actual cittas and cetasikas which might actually > relate to daily experiences regardless of whether you choose to meditate or > ride ponies?" > > Scott: You can't have this discussion with meditators. They believe in a > dhamma called 'self'. This is a fundamental basis for their belief in > 'practice'. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > You might consider being a bit less general. I do meditate (mea > culpa!), much as I do eat and defecate and walk and talk, but I do not in the > slightest believe in a dhamma called "self". (NB: I cannot write this > coherently without saying "You" and "I" - so please don't draw atta-view > conclusions from that.) pt: Howard, it's not about beliefs as conventionally understood, but about actual cetana that arises in the briefest of instances whenever there's an impulsion to fight the present. It's not a matter of thinking or subscribing to some or other school, but a matter of what actually happens. E.g. there's the fundamental problem that if there's a dislike of present (no matter how it's rationalised in subsequent thought processes - need to increase mindfulness, be a better person, etc.) the impulsion is based on lobha/dosa, so not kusala, and automatically nothing to do with sati, panna, etc, even though it "seems" right. Our compass for what's "right" is off. accumulations and all that. Best wishes pt ==================================== Despite new-age characterizations of Buddhist practice being a matter of "going with the flow," it is quite the opposite. It is a matter of going against the flow by recollecting urgency and remembering (and exerting energy) to stay with what actually occurs rather than getting lost in sloth & torpor, lost in thought, or overwhelmed by excitement. For example, with regard to overcoming sloth & torpor while meditating, in AN 7.58, there is the following: __________________________ As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to Ven. Maha Moggallana, "Are you nodding, Moggallana? Are you nodding?" "Yes, lord." "Well then, Moggallana, whatever perception you have in mind when drowsiness descends on you, don't attend to that perception, don't pursue it. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then recall to your awareness the Dhamma as you have heard & memorized it, re-examine it & ponder it over in your mind. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then repeat aloud in detail the Dhamma as you have heard & memorized it. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then pull both your earlobes and rub your limbs with your hands. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then get up from your seat and, after washing your eyes out with water, look around in all directions and upward to the major stars & constellations. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then attend to the perception of light, resolve on the perception of daytime, [dwelling] by night as by day, and by day as by night. By means of an awareness thus open & unhampered, develop a brightened mind. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then — percipient of what lies in front & behind — set a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly immersed, your mind not straying outwards. It's possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness. "But if by doing this you don't shake off your drowsiness, then — reclining on your right side — take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with your mind set on getting up. As soon as you wake up, get up quickly, with the thought, 'I won't stay indulging in the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of reclining, the pleasure of drowsiness.' That is how you should train yourself. _________________________ With regard to overcoming lust and aversion, there is the following from AN 4.14: And what is the exertion to abandon? There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of sensuality that has arisen (in him). He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a thought of ill will... a thought of violence... any evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen (in him). He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is called the exertion to abandon. ____________________________ And very generally, in MN 117, there is the following: ________________________ "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into _right view_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into _right resolve_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.htm\ l) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into _right speech_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into _right action_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.htm\ l) : This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into _right livelihood_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.htm l) : This is one's right effort." =============================== With metta, Howard "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" — _AN 2.19_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) #118799 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? philofillet Hi Howard Yes, abandon the unskillful, but it can't be done by cittas rooted in akusala, let's keep that in mind. Great when the elimination of a harmful mind state arises due to conditions ( the most important one being understanding of the dhammas involved) and great that such elimination arises quite often. That's where the hope lies behind the stirring sutta passages, not in dictating behaviour to ourselves based on reading them. Metta, Phil