#118800 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:25 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, pt: "well, you're saying you're not getting anywhere with meditators?..." Scott: The only ones who aren't taking their balls and going home are the meditators. They just keep on saying the same thing over and over again. Ha ha. I'm not trying to get anywhere with the meditators. I am considering Dhamma when I interact with them. You may as well keep up the way you like to go like me. Scott. #118801 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:34 am Subject: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi Nina Please allow me to write to you a bit later about this topic of no "No Nina" for me yet, but "is seeing Nina? Is hearing Nina?" very helpful. Bed time now and I'm going to use the next two days (my weekend) to, perhaps, work on some stories, your asking about them helped... Thanks also for your answer re my sense door mind door question. Metta, Phil #118802 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:38 am Subject: The Matter of Civilizations Past and Earlier Buddhas upasaka_howard Hi, all - This is all just idle speculation on my part and smacking of scifi thinking, but still ... : I came across the following article that might be of interest relative to the Buddhist references to prior ages and prior buddhas: ______________________ Many of us are familiar with the idea that the world's continents once fit snuggly together into one huge single supercontinent called Pangea. What most of us don't know is that Pangea was only the seventh and last of a series of supercontinents that coagulated and split apart at regular intervals after the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Pangea existed between 550 and 200 million years ago--which is relatively recent in geological time. In fact, if the entire history of the world were expressed as a week starting on a Monday, Pangea would only have appeared early on Sunday morning. The very first supercontinent was called Vaalbara and it started forming more than 3.6 billion years ago. ---------------------------------- It occurs to me that on these prior "supercontinents" and also on land masses at various times between the "coagulated continents," evolution of forms might have proceeded to the point of past human civilizations, again and again. And this, in turn, makes me think of the following, which I found on ATI: Yes, I know, just nutty imagination. Still, I thought I'd pass this along. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118803 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 pt, (Howard,) Scott: pt, here is the meditator mantra: HCW: "...I do meditate...but I do not in the slightest believe in a dhamma called 'self'..." Scott: They say it over and over, unable to make the connection between the sitting and wanting to create conditions and self. They think that they can create conditions by sitting and will never see that this *is* 'self' belief in action. Scott: And here is the other message: H: "...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..." Scott: All the dhammas are mentioned but when the context is 'I have to go against the flow by recollecting urgency and remembering (and exerting energy)' and 'I have to stay with whatever actually occurs' and 'I have to not get lost in sloth and torpor, or thought' or 'I have to not get overwhelmed by excitement,' it is clear that these mental factors are seen as something entirely different. You can try to discuss these dhammas, knowing that they are mental factors with characteristics, etc., but the meditator simply does not comprehend things that way. Howard believes that everything except Nibbaana is conceptual and yet talks as if he doesn't. Extremely inconsistent. H "For example, with regard to overcoming sloth & torpor while meditating, in AN 7.58, there is the following..." Scott: And then you get the string of suttas, which, of course, means that what has been asserted a) is what the Buddha said and, b) that meditators speak for the Buddha. This same response no matter what style you attempt. Why? View. Scott. #118804 From: "connie" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:23 am Subject: Re: The Matter of Civilizations Past and Earlier Buddhas nichiconn along the same lines, Howard, from "The Sermon of the Seven Suns" After a last vast interval, a seventh sun appears, and then, monks, this great earth, and Sineru, the monarch of mountains, flare and blaze, and become one mass of flame. And now, from earth and mountains burning and consuming, a spark is carried by the wind and goes as far as the worlds of God; and the peaks of Mount Sineru, burning, consuming, perishing, go down in one vast mass of fire and crumble for an hundred, yea, five hundred leagues. And of this great earth, monks, and Sineru, the monarch of mountains, when consumed and burnt, neither ashes nor soot remains. Just as when ghee or oil is consumed and burnt, monks, neither ashes nor soot remains, so it is with the great earth and Mount Sineru. Thus, monks, impermanent are the constituents of existence, unstable, non-eternal: so much so, that this alone is enough to weary and disgust one with all constituent things and emancipate therefrom. Therefore, monks, do those who deliberate and believe1 say this: 'This earth and Sineru, the monarch of mountains, will be burnt and perish and exist no more,' excepting those who have seen the path. is there even a planet earth now? is it the same planet earth as the prior buddhas lived on? my god, i haven't checked your link, but have you seen the descriptions of these guys?! we'd be hard pressed to recognize them. hm, well, there we are: who sees the dhamma now? peace, connie > DN 14 & _DN 32_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html) : Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama.> > > Yes, I know, just nutty imagination. Still, I thought I'd pass this > along. #118805 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "It's a matter, only, of (non-distracted, i.e., mindful) attention to rupas and namas, attending to what is actually going on..." Scott: But these 'rupas and namas' are not 'what is actually going on' according to you. Nibbaana is the only reality, right? What are you going on about 'attention' and 'rupas and namas' for - dhammas with characteristics - if you don't believe in their reality? Scott. #118806 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:31 am Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta scottduncan2 Rob E., Sorry, missed this one: R: "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..." Scott: Like we have a 'practice' too? Nice try. It's on you to defend *your* 'practice' on a list where 'practice' is not believed in - and where you attempt to convince people about it anyway. You can add a bit of 'detailed description' of your own 'practice' yourself though, since it hasn't been all that forthcoming. That way we can look at the dhammas that are said to be utilized by you as you 'practice' and discuss them, as pt would like to do. Scott. Scott. #118807 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/16/2011 1:03:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: pt, (Howard,) Scott: pt, here is the meditator mantra: HCW: "...I do meditate...but I do not in the slightest believe in a dhamma called 'self'..." Scott: They say it over and over, unable to make the connection between the sitting and wanting to create conditions and self. They think that they can create conditions by sitting and will never see that this *is* 'self' belief in action. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: You decided to write this. So you must be enmeshed in self! Besides writing abusive posts, do you eat, sleep, walk, talk? Do you not say "I do X", where X is eating or sleeping or walking or talking? I KNOW you do. But you only want to address meditating. You are fixated on it. --------------------------------------------------- Scott: And here is the other message: H: "...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..." Scott: All the dhammas are mentioned but when the context is 'I have to go against the flow by recollecting urgency and remembering (and exerting energy)' and 'I have to stay with whatever actually occurs' and 'I have to not get lost in sloth and torpor, or thought' or 'I have to not get overwhelmed by excitement,' it is clear that these mental factors are seen as something entirely different. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Are you purposely falsifying history or are you just so overpowered by your beliefs that you can't tell fact from fiction? I did NOT say what you claim I said. Read it over what I said and your falsified paraphrase - or don't. I don't care. I made a mistake in presuming good will and respect for truth and for other people on your part, and a mistake writing you. I hope not to make that mistake soon again. --------------------------------------------- You can try to discuss these dhammas, knowing that they are mental factors with characteristics, etc., but the meditator simply does not comprehend things that way. -------------------------------------------- HCW: "The meditator"!!! And you accuse others of atta-view! ------------------------------------------- Howard believes that everything except Nibbaana is conceptual and yet talks as if he doesn't. ------------------------------------------- HCW: No, I do not talk otherwise. I consider it entirely a matter of convention to speak of separate, distinct entities. A very everyday analogy: I speak of rainbows and you speak of rainbows, and we can talk of all their colors and be speaking truly and all the while know there is no single, graspable thing that is "a rainbow". But such seems to elude you. ------------------------------------------- Extremely inconsistent. ------------------------------------------- HCW: Not at all. Just too much for you. ------------------------------------------ H "For example, with regard to overcoming sloth & torpor while meditating, in AN 7.58, there is the following..." Scott: And then you get the string of suttas, which, of course, means that what has been asserted a) is what the Buddha said and, b) that meditators speak for the Buddha. -------------------------------------------- HCW: What in the world are you talking about!! It seems that you are opposed to my quoting the Buddha as evidence for what I understand to be his teaching. That being the case, how can anyone have a decent discussion of Dhamma with you? I believe in fact that no one can! ---------------------------------------------- This same response no matter what style you attempt. Why? View. Scott. ==================================== With metta, Howard P. S. I apologize for writing you, Scott. Let's call it quits. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118808 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/16/2011 1:57:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "It's a matter, only, of (non-distracted, i.e., mindful) attention to rupas and namas, attending to what is actually going on..." Scott: But these 'rupas and namas' are not 'what is actually going on' according to you. Nibbaana is the only reality, right? What are you going on about 'attention' and 'rupas and namas' for - dhammas with characteristics - if you don't believe in their reality? Scott. ================================== Just this one more: See my analogy of the boater and whirlpools. Or don't. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118809 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Howard, H: "...See my analogy of the boater and whirlpools..." Scott: If you could demonstrate with examples of your actual 'practice,' describing what you do, why you do it, and what it leads to, using (and defining) your own terms of reference, that would be so very much better than this old analogy. In the old 'jhaana' debates you came clean that you don't attain, while advocating the heck out of jhaana. Since you still 'practice,' why not try to demonstrate the nuts and bolts of this 'practice' and it's efficacy. It ought to be easy for you to show this since you've been doing it for so long. Scott. #118810 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/16/2011 3:15:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, H: "...See my analogy of the boater and whirlpools..." Scott: If you could demonstrate with examples of your actual 'practice,' describing what you do, why you do it, and what it leads to, using (and defining) your own terms of reference, that would be so very much better than this old analogy. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: There's not a snowball's chance in hell that I will describe my practice for you. I have watched, and I've learned, and I'm not a fool. ------------------------------------------- In the old 'jhaana' debates you came clean that you don't attain, while advocating the heck out of jhaana. Since you still 'practice,' why not try to demonstrate the nuts and bolts of this 'practice' and it's efficacy. It ought to be easy for you to show this since you've been doing it for so long. Scott. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118811 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Howard, I love the title of this thread. Up with scatology. H: "...do you eat, sleep, walk, talk? Do you not say 'I do X', where X is eating or sleeping or walking or talking? I KNOW you do..." Scott: I don't call it a 'practice' and I'm not confused by conventional language. HCW: "...I did NOT say what you claim I said. Scott: What are 'sloth' and 'torpor' and 'awareness?' How do you know these are present when you 'practice?' HCW: "No, I do not talk otherwise. I consider it entirely a matter of convention to speak of separate, distinct entities..." Scott: If so, then what is actually happen when you 'practice?' What are these conventions you are speaking of? Do they exist? Scott. #118812 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "There's not a snowball's chance in hell that I will describe my practice for you. I have watched, and I've learned, and I'm not a fool." Scott: That's an analogy, isn't it? Like it's super hot in hell and a snowball would melt. So, no 'practice' description, eh? I still find it interesting that the 'practice' afficianados suddenly get all coy when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of 'practice.' Nothing happens, by the way. Rob E. hasn't actually described anything in detail. I'm just discussing stuff. I suppose it wouldn't help to use the old tactic of claiming I'm right now and being all triumphant since you won't put your money where your mouth is - that's an analogy or something, like I'm not wanting your money or anything. And I hope we're really not going to talk about the 'meditation for defecating' for real. If you're going to describe a 'practice' please choose another one. If you choose that, though, it'll be fine. Scott. #118813 From: Vince Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Nina you wrote: > 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. ok, the Walshe translation it's in the same sense so it would be the right one. > When awareness arises of the visible object which appears, one is > alone, there is no person there. At that moment one does not cling to > an image or to details. Visible object falls away and nothing is > left; only the memory remains. Everything lasts just for a moment and > in the next life everything is forgotten. We should often consider > that we see visible object, no husband or wife, friend or relative.> normally I try to keep something similar, avoiding a second review engaged with details and intellectual implications of what I see, hear... I believe all further experience it's a quick attachment arising after the contact. Although sometimes one is forced to do that. A.S explanations are always so detailed and wonderful. thanks, very helpful. best, #118814 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? dhammasaro Good friends all, if I may, yet again... (perhaps, you will observe this message in less than 24 hours... [verily beeg Texican hopes] Why not be in the "moment" of the current action of ones' volitional action(s)? Seriously... Same as reading a DSG message... Same as meditating... What is the difference, heh? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <...> 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? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ <...> #118815 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:58 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? kenhowardau Hi Chuck (and Howard), --- <. . .> > C:Why not be in the "moment" of the current action of ones' volitional action(s)? > > Seriously... > > Same as reading a DSG message... > > Same as meditating... > > What is the difference, heh? > --- KH: Some of us are trying to help others to see what we have seen: all this talk about vipassana meditation and "being in the moment" is just smoke and mirrors. That is, it is just a "deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description." (Wikipedia) To help each other see through the smoke and mirrors we are asking meditators to give full explanations. What, for example, is meant by "being in the moment of one's current volitional action"? I was a Buddhist meditator (of sorts) for 26 years, and so I learned all the tricks. I learned to pretend to know what I was talking about. Ken H > 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. #118816 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:26 am Subject: What is the cause of Contentment? bhikkhu5 Friends: How to train Rejoicing Joy in others Success? When sitting alone, in silence, each early morning, with closed eyes one wishes: May I radiate and meet only never-ending and mutually rejoicing joy! May I & all the various beings on the 31 levels of existence develop and find only celebration and elation in a never-ending mutually rejoicing joy! May I & all beings on the sense-desire, fine-material, and the formless plane develop and encounter this generous, infinite and mutually rejoicing joy! May I & all beings in the front, to the right, the back, the left, and below as above, develop and experience openhearted, sharing, & mutually rejoicing joy! May I and all beings within this city, country, planet and universe always: Be fully aware and deeply mindful of this content and mutually rejoicing joy! Examine all details & aspects of this satisfied and mutually rejoicing joy! Put enthusiastic effort in our praxis of this devoted mutually rejoicing joy! Enjoy enraptured jubilant gladness in this exulting mutually rejoicing joy! Be silenced by the tranquillity of quiet and all smiling mutually rejoicing joy! Be concentrated & absorbed into one-pointedness by genuine rejoicing joy! Dwell in an imperturbable equanimity of pure and mutually rejoicing joy... Yeah! May it be even so, since mutual joy causes the jewel of contentment! Comment: Mutual Joy is the 3rd infinite mental state (Appamaññā): This gradually reduces all envy, jealousy, possessiveness, stinginess, avarice miserliness, green covetousness and unhappiness related with all these states. The cause of Mutual Joy in rejoicing in your child's or boon companion's success. This same joy can then be beamed towards all liked, neutral and hostile beings. Mutual Joy is then the proximate cause of satisfied and fulfilled Contentment... Lack of mutual joy is thus the proximate cause of dissatisfied discontentment... Joined with the 7 links to Awakening it will later cause a formless jhāna... Be happy at all and especially other being's success! Then calm comfort grows! <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #118817 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:37 pm Subject: Another Friendly Reminder dsgmods Dear All, As a matter of courtesy, please remember the following guidelines for DSG: 1. Stay friendly and pleasant when writing to the list. Please avoid any sarcasm, discourtesy or overly personal remarks. 2. Be tolerant of others' views and opinions, no matter how off-base they may seem to you. The rest of the Guidelines can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Jon & Sarah p.s Any comments to these reminders, off-list only. Thanks #118818 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:01 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > 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, Oh, I would just disagree with you completely about this. I don't think that someone who subscribes to a particular practice in their life, and who also has an interest in Dhamma, conditionality, cittas and cetasikas has any obligation at all to justify their being here in the group just as much as anyone else. And I certainly don't think that the "founding of dsg" on one or another philosophical bent means that a certain group of people on this list either have an obligation to disclose and justify their practice or else to keep their mouths shut and talk in the same terms and beliefs as everyone else as you are now directly suggesting. That is just ridiculous, Phil. After I followed Scott's taunting and your coaxing to talk about my meditation practice and was willing to entertain some challenges and questions and discuss the issues involved, you are now pushing the issue even further and suggesting quite strongly that there is something wrong with having the view that practice is even acceptable in this group. I reject what you are saying, and I think you should think carefully about the implications and take it back. > 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." I don't give a damn what you think this group was founded on and whether you think there is an inherent view against meditation. I have been here talking, debating and sharing my view of Dhamma as well as learning a lot from others for many years, and I think you are stepping over the line to now suggest that somehow those who believe in meditating are second class citizens who should shut up and talk in dhamma terms or not at all. You have now been insinuating a number of times that the meditators here have an obligation to justify their practice, and I'm getting sick of it. Back off and be glad to have your own way of approaching Dhamma and stop criticizing others and suggesting that there's something wrong with them. Stow it. > As for my previous beliefs, you can keep mentioning 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. Then let it apply to you and don't turn around to judge others. > 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 comment - my bad, serves me right! No problem with your current practice or whatever you would like to call it. If you do talk to others about their way of approaching Dhamma, I suggest you do so with an open mind and share your ideas, rather than telling them what to do, when to talk, and what to talk about. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118819 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:07 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- 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. Your question was disingenous. No one is debating whether Buddha instructed people the best way to go shopping, read a magazine or sit on the toilet. The sutta is obviously about the practice of satipatthana. If you think that meditation and sitting on the toilet are on the same par as regards mindfulness, then I guess you will have to read the sutta in that light and practice equally during both activities, or not. The sutta describes how satipatthana is practiced and developed and then suggests a number of areas where the practice can be applied during everyday life and for other special areas of investigation, such as corps meditation. This doesn't seem too confusing to me. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118820 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahatship. Was: Khandhas nilovg Dear Vince, Op 16-okt-2011, om 23:28 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: >> When awareness arises of the visible object which appears, one is >> alone, there is no person there. At that moment one does not cling to >> an image or to details. Visible object falls away and nothing is >> left; only the memory remains. Everything lasts just for a moment and >> in the next life everything is forgotten. We should often consider >> that we see visible object, no husband or wife, friend or relative.> > > normally I try to keep something similar, avoiding a second review > engaged with > details and intellectual implications of what I see, hear... I > believe all > further experience it's a quick attachment arising after the contact. > Although sometimes one is forced to do that. A.S. explanations are > always so > detailed and wonderful. ------ N: When we feel that we are forced to do something, it means: conditions operate, as you know. I am so glad you appreciate A.S. explanations. ----- Nina. #118821 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:15 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 18:34 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Please allow me to write to you a bit later about this topic of no > "No Nina" for me yet, but "is seeing Nina? Is hearing Nina?" very > helpful. ------ N: I said that to Lodewijk, but this does not help him. But I have more thoughts about this. Intellectually we know that what we take for a person are impermanent naamas and ruupas. So long as there is not a beginning awareness of one characteristic at a time, even a beginning, the intellectual understanding of 'there are only naamas and ruupas' may not be convincing. I remember Kh S. explaining: when touching there is hardness and at that moment there is nothing else. There is nothing else in the world. It has a reason that she will always repeat what visible object is, what seeing is, and the fact that a person is not seen. To help us to attand to the characteristics of seeing and visible object. We have been talking about this for years. Perhaps what I said above is the main cause of Lodewijk's difficulties. But it is difficult for all of us. It goes against our nature which is clinging. Nina. #118822 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. As usual you are completely wrong. See below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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. No, they are not. Thanks for trying. > What do you actually do when you sit and focus on a 'meditation object'? A clear, detailed description ought to prove your case. Actually it wouldn't prove anything, just provide more fodder for your zealously held views about "self," which themselves form a kind of "self-view" of what is and isn't self. Well congratulations on being so sure of your own beliefs -- which by the way are also just beliefs in a doctrine you like and nothing more -- that you are willing to create a fully formed "self" around it, and then hang onto it for dear life, telling everyone else that you are not clinging to self and they are. What nonsense! > Just the act of deliberately sitting and 'focusing' in order to 'create conditions for the development of sati' is a pure act of 'self'. No, it is not. As many times as it has been explained to you, you will never accept the idea that one accepts the efficacy of the activity based on the teachings of the Buddha and one does not have any idea of controlling what arises and how it develops. None. So there is no self involved. And it doesn't take any special belief that I can "control the conditions" to make them right. Again, it is a belief that Buddha knew how to instruct this, not that I can do anything. So blow as hard as you like, you are wrong. Your assumptions are wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. Everything you think about meditation and meditators is wrong. > You are doing something that is designed to cause a future kusala dhamma to arise. Conditions and accumulations do cause future dhammas to arise. That is true. > Can it be any more 'self'-directed? It is Buddha-directed, following his method and his instructions. There is no self making up the method, or doing the controlling of the dhammas. None of what you are saying is correct. > It's either wildly mistaken or massively hubristic. Not at all. > 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. No, I am saying that THE BUDDHA knew the conditions so well that I WILL FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS. You, on the other hand, don't know what you're talking about. All you're doing is having an emotional reaction to something that threatens you and that you don't understand. > Welcome to Olde Tyme Religion. Whatever you say, Scott. You're the expert. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118823 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." > > Scott: You should start. You're a little bit of a control freak, aren't you? Did it ever occur to you to stop telling other people what to do? I mean, do you really think you're in charge here? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118824 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > 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. Call it continuum or call it process; those terms or similar ones are used in the Abhidhamma. You just don't like it. BTW, I love the way you personalize everything, which invites the same thing back, and I'm happy to supply it when called upon. "Rob's Abhidhamma." You go out of your way to provoke so you can get a nice juicy response to play with. I think that's a distraction from your equanimity. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118825 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:26 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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. I love it. When I talk in non-Abhidhamma language you chide me to be more precise and use the correct lingo. When I use it you say I am just using it disingenously. Can't win with you, can I? Why don't you just get it over with and put a big stamp on my head that says "defective" and end the conversation? [You must be a heck of a therapist.] You don't really want to have this conversation anyway, do you? You just want to destroy all challenges to your treasured philosophy and go back to feeling special. So just do it, don't bother about me. Make believe that such pesky people aren't really here. "I hear the voices but I know they're not real." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118826 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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? No "further manipulation," just follow the instructions, like a little meditation machine. Buddha's in charge. > You can't disassociate yourself from your claim that you set out to control and create conditions. Didn't claim that, you made that up. There's no "control" and no "creation," just practice. If you don't accept this that is fine, but don't put words or claims in my mouth like a manipulative little person who wants to prove their point by making things up that are not true. > 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. Again, you can claim what you want, and make stuff up, but it's not what I said. Go write your own little fairy story and talk about how right you are, but it has nothing to do with me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118827 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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. This is *your* idea of practice, not mine, so stop ascribing it to me. I don't "make anything happen." Period. There's no "how" because that's not the practice. Keep it up though - if you lie enough times you'll think it's true. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118828 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:29 pm Subject: The Power-House! :-) bhikkhu5 Listen to the Rear Admiral speak half way through this video - Monks provide food for the (Still) MIND! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUJbKqtKb0 &feature=related Modern life: Rat-race-wheel-working-like-a-slave + super(wo)man syndrome= + + Rat race wheel with dedicated worker, working like a slave everyday. versus: Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #118829 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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. I don't "cause" anything, for once and for all. Practice allows things to happen. I don't control what happens. There's no "I" and no control, but there is practice. > That is belief in 'self' plain and simple. Sorry, but it is not. In fact, I am very clear that there's no self. I don't have a problem about that. > If you weren't an advocate of deliberate 'practice' and deliberate 'creation of conditions' First, yes, second, no. > 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. I can't describe that, because I do no such thing. YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP. It's your philosophy that it "must be this way." BTW, you and a few others are the *only* Buddhists in the world that have this odd understanding about meditation practice. I think you made it up. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118830 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:41 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > 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. I have no problem with your more precise description. Those terms are fine with me, although there is part of my description that tells a little more about vipassana-nana as representing different levels of panna, and that is also true. > 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'. Nope, not talking about "vipassana practice." You're being paranoid again, because you don't trust me, so you don't trust what I say. Shame. > You mean to refer to vipassanaa as a 'practice' Nope - I know the difference between what we're talking about here and "vipassana meditation." I'm not trying to suggest that they are the same thing. I'm talking about the function of panna as a moment of vipassana and what that moment of "insight" is about, not a practice. You're got two separate threads confused with each other - cause you're paranoid! :-) > 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. Wasn't suggesting that. You are so prejudiced about me that you can't even have a decent interesting discussion when a real point of interest comes up within the technicalities of juicy stuff like vipassana and panna. It's a damn shame, but I think you're a lost cause as far as having any space to talk to me about anything. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118831 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:46 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Sorry, missed this one: > > R: "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..." > > Scott: Like we have a 'practice' too? Nice try. > > It's on you to defend *your* 'practice' on a list where 'practice' is not believed in - and where you attempt to convince people about it anyway. > > You can add a bit of 'detailed description' of your own 'practice' yourself though, since it hasn't been all that forthcoming. That way we can look at the dhammas that are said to be utilized by you as you 'practice' and discuss them, as pt would like to do. Forget it. I think I've fed the machine more than enough already, and gotten nothing back but prejudice and misinterpretation for the trouble. Let's move on and talk about dhammas or else just ignore me. And if you can't even have a "dhamma" discussion when one comes up without making your same old general points about practice over and over again, please don't bother. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118832 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:49 pm Subject: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Intellectually we know that what we take for a person are impermanent > naamas and ruupas. So long as there is not a beginning awareness of > one characteristic at a time, even a beginning, the intellectual > understanding of 'there are only naamas and ruupas' may not be > convincing. I .... S: I think this is very true. Not only does it seem unconvincing, it seems as though there is something missing, something overlooked, as if "the heart" of living is missing, until awareness begins to be aware directly of seeing, visible object and other dhammas appearing now. Gradually as awareness develops, it becomes more apparent that these dhammas really are "the All" - one world at a time. ... >remember Kh S. explaining: when touching there is > hardness and at that moment there is nothing else. There is nothing > else in the world. It has a reason that she will always repeat what > visible object is, what seeing is, and the fact that a person is not > seen. To help us to attand to the characteristics of seeing and > visible object. .... S: Yesterday morning at breakfast with our swimming group after our early swim (with dolphins!!), I was talking to a lady who has quite an interest in Buddhism. She was talking about her dificulties and moods and said she found kamma difficult. I was explaining about "this moment" and how we cling to ourselves and others as being 'this person', but how really, at this moment there is just visible object seen and how there might be anger one moment and kindness the next, but how it's useless to dwell on what's past and to think it should be another way. Just fleeting dhammas. It's really very, very difficult for everyone to give up the idea of Self who experiences anything. Appreciating this great difficulty, as Lodewijk does, shows an understanding in itself. Most people just don't believe it's true that there aren't any people in reality. (Btw, Pt, this lady would like to join our next discussion here if she's free). ... >We have been talking about this for years. > Perhaps what I said above is the main cause of Lodewijk's > difficulties. But it is difficult for all of us. It goes against our > nature which is clinging. .... S: Yes, it's so true - "our nature which is clinging". As K.Sujin always reminds us, from the moment we wake up, there is clinging to sense experiences and our thoughts about them - all day this goes on. I hope you and Lodewijk are having some nice breaks in the countryside before it gets too cold in Europe. Metta Sarah ====== #118833 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) nilovg Dear Sarah, This is a lovely post, thank you. Op 17-okt-2011, om 8:49 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > .... > S: I think this is very true. Not only does it seem unconvincing, > it seems as though there is something missing, something > overlooked, as if "the heart" of living is missing, until awareness > begins to be aware directly of seeing, visible object and other > dhammas appearing now. Gradually as awareness develops, it becomes > more apparent that these dhammas really are "the All" - one world > at a time. > ... > N: You expressed this so well: as if the heart of living is missing. ------ > > .... > S: Yesterday morning at breakfast with our swimming group after our > early swim (with dolphins!!), I was talking to a lady who has quite > an interest in Buddhism. She was talking about her dificulties and > moods and said she found kamma difficult. I was explaining about > "this moment" and how we cling to ourselves and others as being > 'this person', but how really, at this moment there is just visible > object seen and how there might be anger one moment and kindness > the next, but how it's useless to dwell on what's past and to think > it should be another way. Just fleeting dhammas. It's really very, > very difficult for everyone to give up the idea of Self who > experiences anything. Appreciating this great difficulty, as > Lodewijk does, shows an understanding in itself. Most people just > don't believe it's true that there aren't any people in reality. > ------ N: This is helpful, I pass it on to Lodewijk. ------ > > >We have been talking about this for years. > > Perhaps what I said above is the main cause of Lodewijk's > > difficulties. But it is difficult for all of us. It goes against our > > nature which is clinging. > .... > S: Yes, it's so true - "our nature which is clinging". As K.Sujin > always reminds us, from the moment we wake up, there is clinging to > sense experiences and our thoughts about them - all day this goes on. > > I hope you and Lodewijk are having some nice breaks in the > countryside before it gets too cold in Europe. > -------- N: Lodewijk has been going through tests, bone scan, etc. for three days and now conversations with different specialists follow. A difficult time just now. But we still walk and we had a nice break for a week. Nina. #118834 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? ptaus1 Hi Howard (Scott, RobE, RobK, Phil, Alex, Sarah, all) > H: ...recollecting urgency... pt: This imo is the core we can all discuss regardless of allegiances - when urgency arises, what is the difference between when it is kusala urgency and akusala urgency (so lobha/dosa masquerading as urgency)? Please remember, I'm not saying that your urgency is necessarily always akusala or always kusala, but I'm in fact after understanding myself what is the difference between a/kusala urgency, and therefore am interested in what others (you, Scott, the two Robs and others) have found/experienced in real life. For my part, I find urgency (of the kind i think is kusala) happens when there's a realisation of some sort. In other words, understanding arises, I think, and it already feels "urgent". Usually, this moment of realisation is closely related to some sort of conceptual rationalisation of what just occurred ala "so, the abhidhamma's right after all, there really is nothing there right now other than a feeling, perception, etc, and it's all already gone", etc, and then this is further followed by conceptual urging myself ala "gotta remember this, and not fall for the same trick again..." at which point I believe it has already become akusala urgency. > H: ...remembering pt: Again the same I'd like to ask, what's the difference between a/kusala recollection? This is a very tricky area in fact, which I have to consider for a bit, if anyone wants to have a crack at it, please do. In particular, one thing that confuses me to bits is whether accumulations is sanna, even though akusala, would still condition kusala, which is how I think I understood Sarah, Nina and Scott recently, even though they were addressing something different... Have to catch up with replies to those topics Nina, Sarah and Scott, so don't feel obliged to respond to this bit. > H: ...(and exerting energy)... pt: Same deal, what's the difference between a/kusala exertion? For my part, i find kusala exertion is there when there's understanding - e.g. I understand at the time that greed is not a very useful reaction and that patience indeed works much better (more valuable) in that instant for example - with patience, exertion is happening as greed is not there at the time, and it really does feel "energetic" and "uplifting" in a sense, even though you'd tend to think that patience is something passive. Akusala exertion is when I try to stop a greedy reaction. E.g. the classic trying to stop greed with more greed, or with more hate. Anyway, very easy to mix up the two sorts of a/kusala exertion, and i don't think kusala one is yet insight with panna that sees lobha directly. > H: ...to stay with what actually occurs... pt: This is a big one that can be split into several sub-topics: - trying to stay with something - a/kusala differences? - being able to stay with something - as a power/bala, as a meditative experience of "continuity" and "non-forgetfulness", and is there mindfulness there in fact or is it a trick of (akusala) concentration? - "what actually occurs" - as a dhamma, as a thought, as a nimitta, as a self-delusion, as meditative "non-forgetfulness", etc. So this last one is a very wide-ranging subject with many sub-issues - if you don't mind, I'll address some of these in a post to RobE that I keep trying to finish over the last week. Others please have a go at all this from your own perspectives/experiences if you're willing. Best wishes pt #118835 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Scott. Scott [to Howard]: > Since you still 'practice,' why not try > to demonstrate the nuts and bolts of this 'practice' and it's efficacy. It > ought to be easy for you to show this since you've been doing it for so > long. I think you've got a lot of nerve, Scott, to keep making this same demand, as if anyone is obligated to expose their personal activities to you in order to prove themselves. You are not willing to do the same, under the guise that you have no practice, therefore have nothing to talk about. You could easily talk about how Dhamma study has affected your understanding and the moments when panna or other factors arose for citta in your experience, and how frequently such things occur. You could even demonstrate the random nature of such arisings and that they are not connected to any particular activity. All you want to do instead is have a little peep show starring the meditators here, for no other purpose than for you to gawk and jeer at them. I agree with Howard that doing so would be foolish and fruitless at this point, and do nothing but give you further occasions for bolstering and justifying your own sense of rightness, which is nothing but a heavily decorated spiritual self-view. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118836 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:16 pm Subject: Further Discussions India. no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Further Discussions in India. no 2. Kh S: Remember, when there is awareness, that just one characteristic appears. At the moment hardness appears there is no other reality; only hardness is there. Vipassanaa ~naa.na is exactly the same. One begins to understand the faculty of naama, which is the faculty of experiencing the object that appears. Many kinds of realities arise and pa~n~naa will understand them little by little. Pa~n~naa continues to understand realities gradually, with patience and courage. Otherwise it is very difficult to see lobha, and to see the loophole to get away from lobha. We do not know how it covers up realities. When there is awareness it is of no use to think of other things. But there are moments of citta thinking of other things. While we talk about Dhamma this does not mean that one does not think about it or consider it. At such a moment there is pa~n~naa but not of the level of satipa.t.thaana. It does not mean that we should not have such pa~n~naa. The different degrees of pa~n~naa can be known, it can be known whether there is only thinking. There is awareness and thinking, awareness and thinking again. Pa~n~naa knows everything. --------- Nina. #118837 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas ... upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/17/2011 3:05:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Lodewijk has been going through tests, bone scan, etc. for three days and now conversations with different specialists follow. A difficult time just now. But we still walk and we had a nice break for a week. ================================= Nina, I'm so sorry for this - for both of you. Please convey my warmest thoughts and even, despite my embarrassment, I'll say "love," to Lodewijk (and for you also, of course). With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118838 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, pt - Thank you for starting a thread that all can participate in! I would submit a very general response to matter of the unwholesome instances of the activities you point to in the following: I think that whenever there is intermixed craving, aversion, or attachment, there is unwholesomeness. The degree of unwholesomeness can vary, of course, but craving and aversion and sense of self always taint what they condition. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/17/2011 3:36:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard (Scott, RobE, RobK, Phil, Alex, Sarah, all) > H: ...recollecting urgency... pt: This imo is the core we can all discuss regardless of allegiances - when urgency arises, what is the difference between when it is kusala urgency and akusala urgency (so lobha/dosa masquerading as urgency)? Please remember, I'm not saying that your urgency is necessarily always akusala or always kusala, but I'm in fact after understanding myself what is the difference between a/kusala urgency, and therefore am interested in what others (you, Scott, the two Robs and others) have found/experienced in real life. For my part, I find urgency (of the kind i think is kusala) happens when there's a realisation of some sort. In other words, understanding arises, I think, and it already feels "urgent". Usually, this moment of realisation is closely related to some sort of conceptual rationalisation of what just occurred ala "so, the abhidhamma's right after all, there really is nothing there right now other than a feeling, perception, etc, and it's all already gone", etc, and then this is further followed by conceptual urging myself ala "gotta remember this, and not fall for the same trick again..." at which point I believe it has already become akusala urgency. > H: ...remembering pt: Again the same I'd like to ask, what's the difference between a/kusala recollection? This is a very tricky area in fact, which I have to consider for a bit, if anyone wants to have a crack at it, please do. In particular, one thing that confuses me to bits is whether accumulations is sanna, even though akusala, would still condition kusala, which is how I think I understood Sarah, Nina and Scott recently, even though they were addressing something different... Have to catch up with replies to those topics Nina, Sarah and Scott, so don't feel obliged to respond to this bit. > H: ...(and exerting energy)... pt: Same deal, what's the difference between a/kusala exertion? For my part, i find kusala exertion is there when there's understanding - e.g. I understand at the time that greed is not a very useful reaction and that patience indeed works much better (more valuable) in that instant for example - with patience, exertion is happening as greed is not there at the time, and it really does feel "energetic" and "uplifting" in a sense, even though you'd tend to think that patience is something passive. Akusala exertion is when I try to stop a greedy reaction. E.g. the classic trying to stop greed with more greed, or with more hate. Anyway, very easy to mix up the two sorts of a/kusala exertion, and i don't think kusala one is yet insight with panna that sees lobha directly. > H: ...to stay with what actually occurs... pt: This is a big one that can be split into several sub-topics: - trying to stay with something - a/kusala differences? - being able to stay with something - as a power/bala, as a meditative experience of "continuity" and "non-forgetfulness", and is there mindfulness there in fact or is it a trick of (akusala) concentration? - "what actually occurs" - as a dhamma, as a thought, as a nimitta, as a self-delusion, as meditative "non-forgetfulness", etc. So this last one is a very wide-ranging subject with many sub-issues - if you don't mind, I'll address some of these in a post to RobE that I keep trying to finish over the last week. Others please have a go at all this from your own perspectives/experiences if you're willing. Best wishes pt #118839 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas ... nilovg Hi Howard, Your kind words did me well. Inspite of knowing that we are ready to die as soon as we are born, and that we can expect sickness and death, I still worry. But worry is a form of dosa. As Sarah says, the best medicine is Dhamma. Best to study more, write and consider more. Bit there is nothing dramatic, it is just waiting for the tests, and Lodewijk can eat and walk. I send your kind message on, thank you very much, Nina. Op 17-okt-2011, om 13:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, I'm so sorry for this - for both of you. Please convey my > warmest thoughts and even, despite my embarrassment, I'll say > "love," to Lodewijk > (and for you also, of course). #118840 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? nilovg Hi Howard and pt, Op 17-okt-2011, om 13:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for starting a thread that all can participate in! > I would submit a very general response to matter of the unwholesome > instances of the activities you point to in the following: I think > that > whenever there is intermixed craving, aversion, or attachment, > there is > unwholesomeness. The degree of unwholesomeness can vary, of course, > but craving and > aversion and sense of self always taint what they condition. -------- N: Yes, this is well expressed. The sense of self: good to ponder over. Even when worrying about someone else, there is a lot of sense of self: "I". How will affect this me! -------- Nina. > > > #118841 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >A: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. > ------- > N: Direct awareness and understanding is much clearer. >================================= Since a citta cannot know its own characteristics, and only one citta exists at a time, it means that what one is subsequently aware of is of characteristics of citta that does not exist anymore. So one in all cases has conceptual understanding. Understanding is done with subsequent citta after the original citta ceased. With best wishes, Alex #118842 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:58 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, Satipatthana sutta (as many others) does urge the person to go to seclusion. In MN17 the Buddha does say that if at certain place mindfulness is established, then you should stay there even if food is scare. If at certain place mindfulness is not established, then leave, even if there are plenty of food. So, unfortunately, the place DOES matter. "And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore." - MN39 Please note the point at which one really develops mindfulness from which eventually insight follows. It is NOT fully developed in any circumstance, but in seclusion. The Buddha has often said in imperative tone about going to seclusion: "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all."" - MN106 So when it comes to what suttas and even VsM recommends, it is clear. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/017-vanapattha\ -sutta-e1.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118843 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:38 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >pt: This is a big one that can be split into several sub-topics: >- trying to stay with something - a/kusala differences? >================================ Observe the reaction and how it feels. Is what is happening right now with sensuality or renunciation? With ill will or not-ill will? With cruelty or not? Does it feel pleasant or not? When one meditates, one observes what is happening as direct experience, not as something that one merely reads or thinks about. Eventually the observations will accumulate, the wisdom gets developed and all the consequent stages of insight happen by themselves whether "you" want it or not. ============= How to recognize the Dhamma? ================== "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" - AN 7.79 These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" AN 8.53 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.079.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118844 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: I still find it interesting that the 'practice' afficianados >suddenly get all coy when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of >'practice.' > >Nothing happens, by the way. Rob E. hasn't actually described >anything in detail. I'm just discussing stuff. I suppose it wouldn't >help to use the old tactic of claiming I'm right now and being all >triumphant since you won't put your money where your mouth is - that's >an analogy or something, like I'm not wanting your money or anything. >=============================================== You are asking RobertE for description of his practice and results. Since, as I am aware, you are the one who started these personal questions, then lets start with you. Scott, what results did you achieve? How do you develop Dhamma understanding? With best wishes, Alex #118845 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Alex, "...what results did you achieve? How do you develop Dhamma understanding?" Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the way you do. Scott. #118846 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard (Alex, ..) I think , the issue is quite complex and requires details ..at least for my understanding. Below how I see the matter so far : you wrote: (D: 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 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 D: What disturbs me is the rejection of reality ( 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.) , although you seem to be fully in accord with the texts. For the benefit of clarity : (copied from Wiki): "The simile of the chariot in relation to the Buddhist doctrine of no-self (anattā) was popularised in the Milinda Panha (Questions of King Milinda), an important Pali work dating from the first century ce, although most of the text was written in Sri Lanka at a later date.[2] The text takes the form of a dialogue between King Milinda, who likely ruled Sakala in the east Punjab in the 2nd to 1st centuries bce, and a Buddhist monk, Nagasena. The dialogue begins with Nagasena claiming that ‘Nagasena’ is just a designation and that no individual, permanent self exists. Initially, Milinda disputes this and questions the sage on how merits and demerits for thoughts and actions can be attributed to an individual were no self to exist and subsequently asks what it is then that the name Nagasena does denote. Each in turn, he asks whether it is his body or parts of it, his sensations, his ideas or his consciousness that are denoted by ‘Nagasena’ to which the sage replies in the negative. The king then responds by asking who it is he sees before him. Nagasena replies by way of an analogy with a chariot, beginning by asking the King (after having enquired as to how he had arrived at their meeting), ‘What is a chariot? Is it the wheels, the framework, the ropes, the spokes of the wheel?’ The King argues that none of these things are the chariot but the aggregate of such physical parts composed in certain ways is conventionally understood as a chariot. To this Nagasena responds, ‘'Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of "chariot." And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned me about (the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and the five constituent elements of being) that I come under the generally understood term, the designation in common use, of "Nâgasena. For it was said, Sire, by our Sister Vagirâ in the presence of the Blessed One: '"Just as it is by the condition precedent of the co-existence of its various parts that the word 'chariot' is used, just so is it that when the Skandhas are there we talk of a 'being .'"'[3] Individual beings are without a permanent essence and are simply combinations of material and immaterial processes, subject to change at every moment, that are designated a name for matters of convenience" following from http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/202.html :  " 2. Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii) Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego," are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. 59 He, however, who abandons this knowledge of the truth and believes in a living entity must assume either that this living entity will perish or that it will not perish. If he assume that it will not perish, he falls into the heresy of the persistence of existences; or if he assume that it will perish, he falls into that of the annihilation of existences. And why do I say so? Because, just as sour cream has milk as its antecedent, so nothing here exists but what has its own antecedents. To say, "The living entity persists," is to fall short of the truth; to say, "It is annihilated," is to outrun the truth. Therefore has The Blessed One said:— 60 "There are two heresies, O priests, which possess both gods and men, by which some fall short of the truth, and some outrun the truth; but the intelligent know the truth. 61 "And how, O priests, do some fall short of the truth? 62 "O priests, gods and men delight in existence, take pleasure in existence, rejoice in existence, so that when the Doctrine for the cessation of existence is preached to them, their minds do not leap toward it, are not favorably disposed toward it, do not rest in it, do not adopt it. 63 "Thus, O priests, do some fall short of the truth." 64 "And how, O priests, do some outrun the truth? 65 "Some are distressed at, ashamed of, and loathe existence, and welcome the thought of non-existence, saying, ‘See here! When they say that on the dissolution of the body this Ego is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death, that is good, that is excellent, that is as it should be.’ 66 "Thus, O priests, do some outrun the truth. 67 "And how, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth? 68 "We may have, O priests, a priest who knows things as they really are, and knowing things as they really are, he is on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them. 69 "Thus, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth. " I think, you agree as well with : the purpose to emphasize anatta , showing in an absolute/ultimate sense nothing of a core/substance can be found justifying I,Ego or Self ( which is persistent or perish). VisM points out to know things as they really are means to be " on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them" (i.e. detachment) As mentioned before holism is a base to understand the issue involved : the whole and its parts. Interesting here : (Wiki )" Koestler proposed the word holon to describe the hybrid nature of sub-wholes and parts within in vivo systems. From this perspective, holons exist simultaneously as self-contained wholes in relation to their sub-ordinate parts, and dependent parts when considered from the inverse direction.He concluded that, although it is easy to identify sub-wholes or parts, wholes and parts in an absolute sense do not exist anywhere." Here as well reference is made to ' in an absolute sense ' . A holon is a system (or phenomenon) which is an evolving self-organizing dissipative structure, composed of other holons, whose structures exist at a balance point between chaos and order. It is maintained by the throughput of matter-energy and information-entropy connected to other holons and is simultaneously a whole in and itself at the same time being nested within another holon and so is a part of something much larger than itself. Holons range in size from the smallest subatomic particles and strings, all the way up to the multiverse, comprising many universes. A hierarchy of holons is called a holarchy. The holarchic model can be seen as an attempt to modify and modernise perceptions of natural hierarchy. Ken Wilber comments that the test of holon hierarchy (e.g. holarchy) is that if a type of holon is removed from existence, then all other holons of which it formed a part must necessarily cease to exist too. Thus an atom is of a lower standing in the hierarchy than a molecule, because if you removed all molecules, atoms could still exist, whereas if you removed all atoms, molecules, in a strict sense would cease to exist. Wilber's concept is known as the doctrine of the fundamental and the significant. A hydrogen atom is more fundamental than an ant, but an ant is more significant Hence no reality can be assumed ? VisM: 'in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house'. Wood as in the word of house , or wheels as in the word of chariot, etc. are itself sub-wholes ..so is reality only a mode of expression? I think we have to keep in mind that our understanding of reality is usually met by the criterions of : takes up space, exists in time and has form , which is valid when we encounter a person/individual , house or chariot . It is a only a concept when we imagine it. Perhaps we may conclude in the style of Wilber : refering to the absolute sense is fundamental , but the common understanding of reality is more significant. with Metta Dieter #118847 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Alex, > > "...what results did you achieve? How do you develop Dhamma understanding?" > > Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the way you do. > > Scott. > Scott, if you keep asking others about their experiences, then please provide yours. With best wishes, Alex #118848 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:45 am Subject: wholes and parts = concepts truth_aerator Hi Dieter, all, Nagasena refutes the idea of *permanent* individual or a *permanent* thing. Not individual in a inconstant, conditioned and empiric sense, but *permanent* individual. The sutta has an important verse at the end which some people miss. The Vajira sutta concludes with: "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." This is quite appropriate for sutta dealing with anicca. As we know, what is anicca is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta. As for "whole is made of parts thus it doesn't exist" isn't a very solid argument. "Whole" and "parts" are conceptual distinctions. You will never find them in experience themselves. A tree is a whole when compared to its leaves, but that tree is a part of ecosystem. So it is relative when it comes to what is whole and what is part. The "whole" cannot exist without its "parts", but neither can the "parts" be without a "whole" which they make up. Big is relative to small, and no amount is inherently big or small. 100 is big compared to 1, but small compared with 1000. Is 100 big or small? It depends on what you measure it against. It has no inherent "bigness" or "smallness". With best wishes, Alex #118849 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Scott, if you keep asking others about their experiences, then please provide yours." Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the way you do. Scott. #118850 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator Scott, >A: "Scott, if you keep asking others about their experiences, then >please provide yours." > >Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the >way you do. >============================================================= Why do you keep insisting that RobertE (or me) describes his experiences and attainments, but when asked refuse to share yours? With best wishes, Alex #118851 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Why do you keep insisting that RobertE (or me) describes his experiences and attainments, but when asked refuse to share yours?" Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the way you do. Scott. #118852 From: "Christine" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:08 am Subject: Re: Useful Links christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "maitreyi" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > Here are some links --- has compilation of dhamma threads with valuable insight which were posted by Htoo Maing few years back. I hope these notes may become useful to you all. Also thanks to Sanskritdocuments.org - One of our friend has graciously hosted these links so, the material can be available to the dhamma aspirants. > > Links Below : > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Notes_on_PATTHANA_DHAMMA.pdf > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Notes_on_AbhiDhamma_Analysis.pdf > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Mahasatipatthanas_and_table.pdf > > With metta, ~maitreyi > Just saw this (I'm slow but I get there!) Thanks Maitreyi with metta Chris #118853 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/17/2011 2:27:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard (Alex, ..) I think , the issue is quite complex and requires details ..at least for my understanding. Below how I see the matter so far : you wrote: (D: 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 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 D: What disturbs me is the rejection of reality ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't consider it a rejection of reality but a correct viewing of reality. :-) ---------------------------------------------- ( 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.) , although you seem to be fully in accord with the texts. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Thank you for providing the following material! ------------------------------------------------ For the benefit of clarity : (copied from Wiki): "The simile of the chariot in relation to the Buddhist doctrine of no-self (anattā) was popularised in the Milinda Panha (Questions of King Milinda), an important Pali work dating from the first century ce, although most of the text was written in Sri Lanka at a later date.[2] The text takes the form of a dialogue between King Milinda, who likely ruled Sakala in the east Punjab in the 2nd to 1st centuries bce, and a Buddhist monk, Nagasena. The dialogue begins with Nagasena claiming that ‘Nagasena’ is just a designation and that no individual, permanent self exists. Initially, Milinda disputes this and questions the sage on how merits and demerits for thoughts and actions can be attributed to an individual were no self to exist and subsequently asks what it is then that the name Nagasena does denote. Each in turn, he asks whether it is his body or parts of it, his sensations, his ideas or his consciousness that are denoted by ‘Nagasena’ to which the sage replies in the negative. The king then responds by asking who it is he sees before him. Nagasena replies by way of an analogy with a chariot, beginning by asking the King (after having enquired as to how he had arrived at their meeting), ‘What is a chariot? Is it the wheels, the framework, the ropes, the spokes of the wheel?’ The King argues that none of these things are the chariot but the aggregate of such physical parts composed in certain ways is conventionally understood as a chariot. To this Nagasena responds, ‘'Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of "chariot." And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned me about (the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and the five constituent elements of being) that I come under the generally understood term, the designation in common use, of "Nâgasena. For it was said, Sire, by our Sister Vagirâ in the presence of the Blessed One: '"Just as it is by the condition precedent of the co-existence of its various parts that the word 'chariot' is used, just so is it that when the Skandhas are there we talk of a 'being .'"'[3] Individual beings are without a permanent essence and are simply combinations of material and immaterial processes, subject to change at every moment, that are designated a name for matters of convenience" following from http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/202.html :  " 2. Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii) Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego," are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. 59 He, however, who abandons this knowledge of the truth and believes in a living entity must assume either that this living entity will perish or that it will not perish. If he assume that it will not perish, he falls into the heresy of the persistence of existences; or if he assume that it will perish, he falls into that of the annihilation of existences. And why do I say so? Because, just as sour cream has milk as its antecedent, so nothing here exists but what has its own antecedents. To say, "The living entity persists," is to fall short of the truth; to say, "It is annihilated," is to outrun the truth. Therefore has The Blessed One said:— 60 "There are two heresies, O priests, which possess both gods and men, by which some fall short of the truth, and some outrun the truth; but the intelligent know the truth. 61 "And how, O priests, do some fall short of the truth? 62 "O priests, gods and men delight in existence, take pleasure in existence, rejoice in existence, so that when the Doctrine for the cessation of existence is preached to them, their minds do not leap toward it, are not favorably disposed toward it, do not rest in it, do not adopt it. 63 "Thus, O priests, do some fall short of the truth." 64 "And how, O priests, do some outrun the truth? 65 "Some are distressed at, ashamed of, and loathe existence, and welcome the thought of non-existence, saying, ‘See here! When they say that on the dissolution of the body this Ego is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death, that is good, that is excellent, that is as it should be.’ 66 "Thus, O priests, do some outrun the truth. 67 "And how, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth? 68 "We may have, O priests, a priest who knows things as they really are, and knowing things as they really are, he is on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them. 69 "Thus, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth. " I think, you agree as well with : the purpose to emphasize anatta , showing in an absolute/ultimate sense nothing of a core/substance can be found justifying I,Ego or Self ( which is persistent or perish). --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes indeed! ---------------------------------------------------- VisM points out to know things as they really are means to be " on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them" (i.e. detachment) As mentioned before holism is a base to understand the issue involved : the whole and its parts. Interesting here : (Wiki )" Koestler proposed the word holon to describe the hybrid nature of sub-wholes and parts within in vivo systems. From this perspective, holons exist simultaneously as self-contained wholes in relation to their sub-ordinate parts, and dependent parts when considered from the inverse direction.He concluded that, although it is easy to identify sub-wholes or parts, wholes and parts in an absolute sense do not exist anywhere." Here as well reference is made to ' in an absolute sense ' . A holon is a system (or phenomenon) which is an evolving self-organizing dissipative structure, composed of other holons, whose structures exist at a balance point between chaos and order. It is maintained by the throughput of matter-energy and information-entropy connected to other holons and is simultaneously a whole in and itself at the same time being nested within another holon and so is a part of something much larger than itself. Holons range in size from the smallest subatomic particles and strings, all the way up to the multiverse, comprising many universes. A hierarchy of holons is called a holarchy. The holarchic model can be seen as an attempt to modify and modernise perceptions of natural hierarchy. Ken Wilber comments that the test of holon hierarchy (e.g. holarchy) is that if a type of holon is removed from existence, then all other holons of which it formed a part must necessarily cease to exist too. Thus an atom is of a lower standing in the hierarchy than a molecule, because if you removed all molecules, atoms could still exist, whereas if you removed all atoms, molecules, in a strict sense would cease to exist. Wilber's concept is known as the doctrine of the fundamental and the significant. A hydrogen atom is more fundamental than an ant, but an ant is more significant Hence no reality can be assumed ? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: There are in truth and reality collections of interrelated phenomena that function in concert. Call them "systems" or "aggregations" or whatever - that is fine, but they are not single phenomena, they are merely collections lacking individuality, core, identity, and essence, and viewing them as entities is purely a matter of convention and convenience. ----------------------------------------------- VisM: 'in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house'. Wood as in the word of house , or wheels as in the word of chariot, etc. are itself sub-wholes ..so is reality only a mode of expression? I think we have to keep in mind that our understanding of reality is usually met by the criterions of : takes up space, exists in time and has form , which is valid when we encounter a person/individual , house or chariot . It is a only a concept when we imagine it. Perhaps we may conclude in the style of Wilber : refering to the absolute sense is fundamental , but the common understanding of reality is more significant. with Metta Dieter =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118854 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Scott, > > >A: "Scott, if you keep asking others about their experiences, then >please provide yours." > > > >Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the >way you do. > >============================================================= > > > Why do you keep insisting that RobertE (or me) describes his experiences and attainments, but when asked refuse to share yours? Such questions only apply to the loathsome meditators, who are to be goaded by Dr. Scott to show their "dirty laundry," all the details of their loathsome meditation, so that it can be displayed and publicly ridiculed here in the land of the Very Enlightened. Dr. Scott knows that his view is the Right View, and his clinging is Right Clinging. And he certainly knows that his Holy Aversion to Meditation is Right Aversion. It is right to parade the details of Loathsome Meditation on full display, so that all can know the horror, the disgust and the delusional self-view of the Loathsome Meditators. In case this view was not absolutely clear, Rob K. - a serious person who is very knowledgeable - descended to grade school level insults by jumping in to compare meditation to Defecation, and challenged the meditators to tell him the correct teaching of the Buddha on how to defecate correctly. Ha ha - because that is just like believing in meditation. After all it is [yuck] an "Activity." In fact, his little defecation joke is still following us around in the thread title - as if Rob K. forgot to "wipe" after leaving his little gift to us, his fully revealed opinion of meditators as "People of the Toilet." The title is "What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating?" But it's fine to insult and humiliate the meditators by asking degrading and rude joke questions that taunt them about their horrible habit of meditating. Why should anyone be polite or considerate to horrible loathsome meditators? There is no reason. They are the lowest of the low and should be treated like the dirty fools they are. So I guess it shouldn't really surprise you, Alex, that we are second class citizens on dsg, according to Scott, the recently revised Phil, and Rob K., and that we can be asked without any consideration to open up our private areas and give everyone a show of the full details of our meditation, defecation and whatever else is requested of us by the Correct Dhamma Followers, with the lights blaring - all will be revealed! Perhaps they'll take flash pictures of our Private Lives, or perhaps discuss them at length, giving a full commentarial analysis of the exact sorts of self-view and other delusions that are polluting our Wrong View of the Dhamma. Because they Know All, so they can evaluate us, pronounce judgment, and tell us off like they are the Buddha Himself. Of course, you can't ask Dr. Scott to reveal his *own* private experiences and list his moments of insight, taking questions from all challengers who want to know how *he* verified his experiences. That would be prying into his personal life - how could you be so rude to one of the Chosen Ones??? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #118855 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Alex, > > A: "Why do you keep insisting that RobertE (or me) describes his experiences and attainments, but when asked refuse to share yours?" > > Scott: These questions are meaningless to me. I don't see things the way you do. Enjoying your new role as an intransigent tape recording of a parrot? How do you see things, Scott? Would you like to share? You do have experiences don't you? Don't bother to repeat your mantra - we got the message. You are a great Inquisitor but don't want to be interviewed yourself. You're in control. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118856 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:38 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? dhammasaro Good friend to KenH, et al Warm thanks for responding... Well, I respect your opinion. As you have Buddhist meditate some six more than I have I do not have anything to add... FWIW, I have meditated since the 1960's using a non-Buddhist form... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: kenhowardau@... <...> KH: Some of us are trying to help others to see what we have seen: all this talk about vipassana meditation and "being in the moment" is just smoke and mirrors. That is, it is just a "deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description." (Wikipedia) To help each other see through the smoke and mirrors we are asking meditators to give full explanations. What, for example, is meant by "being in the moment of one's current volitional action"? I was a Buddhist meditator (of sorts) for 26 years, and so I learned all the tricks. I learned to pretend to know what I was talking about. <...> #118857 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex & all) - In a message dated 10/17/2011 5:28:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: So I guess it shouldn't really surprise you, Alex, that we are second class citizens on dsg, according to Scott, ... ============================== But not according to the majority of admirers of Khun Sujin on DSG, and most especially not according Sarah & Jon or to Nina - an important fact to keep in mind and with which I'm sure you agree, I hasten to note. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118858 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:40 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, Scott and all, It's good to occasionally get an overview of where discussions started and where they were meant to go. I think Robert provided an overview of one of DSG's most central discussions when he wrote: ---------- > RE: BTW, you and a few others are the *only* Buddhists in the world that have this odd understanding about meditation practice. --------- KH: It's true, isn't it? The Buddhist world can be divided into those who believe in formal Buddhist practices and those who don't. The former make up the vast majority and the latter a tiny minority. But what it is it that unites the vast majority? The only thing that unites them is their assumption that the Dhamma must be a set of instructions. They can't agree on what those instructions are, and so their practices vary immensely and totally contradict one another. But they do have that one thing in common. ------------ > RE: I think you made it up. ------------ KH: We couldn't have. No ordinary person could have made up a practice that had no practiser. We are just saying the Buddha would not have taught a set of instructions if there was no one to carry them out. So thanks, Robert, for the recap, let's continue to discuss it. Ken H #118859 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:19 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Useful Links dhammasaro Good friend Christine, Warm thanks for sharing. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: cjforsyth1@... <...> > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > Here are some links --- has compilation of dhamma threads with valuable insight which were posted by Htoo Maing few years back. I hope these notes may become useful to you all. Also thanks to Sanskritdocuments.org - One of our friend has graciously hosted these links so, the material can be available to the dhamma aspirants. > > Links Below : > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Notes_on_PATTHANA_DHAMMA.pdf > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Notes_on_AbhiDhamma_Analysis.pdf > http://sanskritdocuments.org/articles/Mahasatipatthanas_and_table.pdf <...> #118860 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? philofillet Hi All > But not according to the majority of admirers of Khun Sujin on DSG, > and most especially not according Sarah & Jon or to Nina - an important fact > to keep in mind and with which I'm sure you agree, I hasten to note. :-) Don't forget there are many admirers of A Sujin who don't participate at DSG. Because they only enjoy live discussion and don't want to discuss here? Is there some other reason? True, Jon and Sarah have always made people of different views feel welcome. If they hadn't, I wouldn't have had a chance to correct my views. (Not cult talk, it's one of the ten deeds of merit) So kudos to the infinitely patient, infinitely generous ones. (S, J and N.) But don't forget that a lot of students of A Sujin gradually stopped coming here because of the loud insistence on meditation as understood by modern householders, and other forms of blatant wrong view that are quickly dismissed when they come up during live discussions bur must be discussed at length here. The live discussions center on Abhidhamma, people are on the same page, the notion of being able to understand Dhamma just by reading suttas in translation witjout accepting Abhidhamma is literally laughed at. But that is not possible here, so discussion is always so divergent and unfocussed and is usually about trying to prove the other to be wrong, no matter how nicely, or indirectly, or aggressively. Agreeing to disagree, year after year after year which sounds like "heathy discourse" but could be a symptom of failing to understand when it is time to stop wasting time. So please keep in mind that there is a cost to the moderators' kindness and endless patience. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #118861 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:35 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Rob K., R: "...When later in the sutta the Buddha says 'while defecating and urinating' I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique?" Scott: Here's the section of the Satipa.t.thaana Sutta to which you refer: "(3. Full Awareness) 8. "Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts in full awareness when going forward and returning; who acts in full awareness when looking ahead and looking away; who acts in full awareness when flexing and extending his limbs; who acts in full awareness when wearing his robes and carrying his outer robe and bowl; who acts in full awareness when eating, drinking, consuming food, and tasting; who acts in full awareness when defecating and urinating; who acts in full awareness when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, and keeping silent. 9. "In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body internally, externally, and both internally and externally...And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That too is how a bhikkhu abides in contemplating the body as body." Scott. #118862 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:52 am Subject: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi Nina, > > Please allow me to write to you a bit later about this topic of no > > "No Nina" for me yet, but "is seeing Nina? Is hearing Nina?" very > > helpful. > ------ > N: I said that to Lodewijk, but this does not help him. But I have > more thoughts about this. Ph: I was sorry to hear about Lodewijk's health problems, it must be upsetting. We are not Ariyans, atta view ( I heard it means belief in people and things and also inclyded sakkaya ditthi) is with us all the time, so saying ir encouraging ithers to adopt "there is no Nina" feels premature to me. But "is seeing Nina?" is so good. A Sujin brings us back again and again to the present reality, and at such moments of experiencing hardness, visible object, sound, undeniably "there is no Nina." But such moments are so rare that taking "there is no Nina" as our basis for understanding people feels...unwise. Back again and again to seeing visible object etc. Atta ditthi can only be eradicated gradually, patiently, with courage and good cheer. Nothing new there, I know. Metta, Phil > Intellectually we know that what we take for a person are impermanent > naamas and ruupas. So long as there is not a beginning awareness of > one characteristic at a time, even a beginning, the intellectual > understanding of 'there are only naamas and ruupas' may not be > convincing. I remember Kh S. explaining: when touching there is > hardness and at that moment there is nothing else. There is nothing > else in the world. It has a reason that she will always repeat what > visible object is, what seeing is, and the fact that a person is not > seen. To help us to attand to the characteristics of seeing and > visible object. We have been talking about this for years. > Perhaps what I said above is the main cause of Lodewijk's > difficulties. But it is difficult for all of us. It goes against our > nature which is clinging. > > Nina. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #118863 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:23 am Subject: Was Buddha an incapable teacher who couldn't be clear? truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >P:The live discussions center on Abhidhamma, people are on the same >page, the notion of being able to understand Dhamma just by >reading suttas in translation witjout accepting Abhidhamma is >================= Are you saying that Buddha was such an inept, inarticulate, forgetful and misleading teacher who couldn't be clear in the suttas and who didn't give enough information to be understood? With all of that, people who followed his advice were getting awakened by the thousands... "An official view is given by a spokesman for the Buddha Sasana Council of Burma: the Canon contains everything needed to show the path to nirvana;" - Morgan, Path of the Buddha, Ronald Press, New York, 1956, pages v, 71 Please note that it is officoal position that suttas are enough for Nibbana. With best wishes, Alex #118864 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? philofillet Hi again. I wrote: The live discussions center on Abhidhamma, people are on the same page, the notion of being able to understand Dhamma just by reading suttas in translation witjout accepting Abhidhamma is literally laughed at. That was going too far. Let's just say it is quickly and consistently rejected so people can stay on the same page leading to more focussed duscussion. Metta, Phil #118865 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Alex & all) - > > In a message dated 10/17/2011 5:28:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > So I guess it shouldn't really surprise you, Alex, that we are second > class citizens on dsg, according to Scott, ... > ============================== > But not according to the majority of admirers of Khun Sujin on DSG, > and most especially not according Sarah & Jon or to Nina - an important fact > to keep in mind and with which I'm sure you agree, I hasten to note. :-) Yes, I do have that in mind, and I appreciate your saying that. I only didn't mention them because I prefer to keep them out of this sticky mess. Too much akusala. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #118866 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:56 am Subject: Re: Was Buddha an incapable teacher who couldn't be clear? philofillet Hi Alex Sorry, I have to refuse to join in the process of covering the same ground with you again and again and again, life is short, we may die today, all of us. That is not really samvega on my part, it is lobha for free time, and stinginess. Your endlessly patient and generous friends will contunue to explain to you, I'm sure. Metta, Phil #118867 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. Thanks for the worthwhile recap. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, Scott and all, > > It's good to occasionally get an overview of where discussions started and where they were meant to go. I think Robert provided an overview of one of DSG's most central discussions when he wrote: > > ---------- > > RE: BTW, you and a few others are > the *only* Buddhists in the world that have this odd understanding about meditation practice. > --------- > > KH: It's true, isn't it? The Buddhist world can be divided into those who believe in formal Buddhist practices and those who don't. The former make up the vast majority and the latter a tiny minority. > > But what it is it that unites the vast majority? > > The only thing that unites them is their assumption that the Dhamma must be a set of instructions. They can't agree on what those instructions are, and so their practices vary immensely and totally contradict one another. But they do have that one thing in common. I would disagree with this very strongly. Sure, there are variations in details in different Buddhist schools. But they are all based in breathing meditation, and all based in the development of mindfulness, and they all have a component of samatha, jhana or samadhi, by whatever name. They all adhere to the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path, and so they really have a lot more in common than in opposition to each other. > ------------ > > RE: I think you made it up. > ------------ > > KH: We couldn't have. No ordinary person could have made up a practice that had no practiser. This assertion is not evidence of anything, and I don't think it's true that Buddha taught 'no meditation,' the opposite of what he said over and over again. How do you reconcile that? It must be quite a trick. In any case, that is what Buddha did - as you say above - no ordinary person, he created a system of practice while teaching that there is no practicer. Yes, that is amazing, and what's even more amazing is that one can sit down and study or sit down and practice and still realize that there is no self doing anything. What is the evidence that the "path" was not meant to be followed, and the "practice" was not meant to be practiced? Not just your personal logic, or a repetition of the principle that you think is true, but evidence. Where is it asserted that the practice happens by itself and one should not do anything to follow the path. Where is that stated in scripture? > We are just saying the Buddha would not have taught a set of instructions if there was no one to carry them out. Well that is another interesting assertion. I think it also frames the issue very well. Is it possible to carry out a set of instructions with no one to carry them out? I would offer an analogous question to make clear why I think it is very possible: Is it possible for a computer to follow out a set of instructions and then do a series of operations to reach a particular conclusion based on the input of a certain set of conditions? Of course. Does a computer have a self 'making' it do those operations and coordinating or controlling them? Of course not. > So thanks, Robert, for the recap, let's continue to discuss it. Sounds good. I would really appreciate a clear answer with citations to my questions above. They get asked many times, but I've never seen a clear scriptural citation that backs up your claim that the Buddha said not to practice meditation or any other activity to follow the path. Is there one? If so, I can see your source materials and stop saying that you "made it up." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118868 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > But don't forget that a lot of students of A Sujin gradually stopped coming here because of the loud insistence on meditation as understood by modern householders, and other forms of blatant wrong view that are quickly dismissed when they come up during live discussions but must be discussed at length here. I think you've got it wrong. It is often the loud and abrasive anti-meditation voices that bring this subject up for debate and insist on debating it down to the bitter end. There are a lot of Abhidhamma students who practice meditation. If they were accepted, and their occasional references to practice were not made subjects of controversy, it would not become such a big issue. I remember a transcript in which K. Sujin said to one of the people in the discussion who was leaving for a retreat, "enjoy your meditation retreat, but don't forget about the dhamma arising in the moment" or something like that. She didn't laugh or jeer at him for practicing, or try to change his view of practice - she just accepted his practice and emphasized the Dhamma. Not a bad way to build understanding rather than sowing dissension. It could solve a lot of problems if adopted. But people are so attached to being right and to forcing their views on others that they would rather spend a year throwing stones back and forth than move on to a topic they can agree on and investigate. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #118869 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:23 am Subject: Final Knowledge! bhikkhu5 Friends: Which 5 Mental Abilities give Final Knowledge? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these 5 mental abilities (indriya ). What five? The ability of Faith (saddhā ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samādhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) These are the five abilities. When a Bhikkhu has understood as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these five abilities, then this Bhikkhu is released by non-clinging, then he is called an Arahat, one whose mental fermentations are eliminated, who has completed the Noble life, who has done what should be done, put down the burden, reached his own goal, utterly broken the chains of ever new rebecoming, one who is completely liberated through final knowledge... <...> Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V: 194] 48 The Mental Abilities: 4 Arahat.. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #118870 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? philofillet Hi Rob E > I think you've got it wrong. It is often the loud and abrasive anti-meditation voices that bring this subject up for debate and insist on debating Not only meditation, all forms of wrong view, such as believing dhammas are not real, with sabhava. Fine, fair enough. But what is the value of discussing dhammas when such an unbridgeable gap exists. Obviously others din't agree with this opinion of mine, so agreeing to disagree (there should be a shorthand for this, a2d?) goes on and on and on, maybe I will understand the value of it (other than developing dana and khanti and virya, which is khanti in fact) but I don't get it at this time. Thanks Rob, take a few deep breaths, Scott's posts are conditioning some overly excited speech for you, it must be tiring, take care, be well, I say that sincerely. Metta, Phil #118871 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Atta ditthi in the texts? philofillet Hi all, I heard Jon asking about whether atta ditthi (belief in the existence of things and people, with sakkaya ditthi as one aspect) is taught in the texts, but he didn't get a ckear answer, and the discussion moved on. I started reading UPs on wrong vuew but haven't found this topic - yet. The Nyanaponika (?) dictionary just mentions atta ditthi once in its definition of ditthi, calls it "ego illusion." Can anyone share a textual reference for atta ditthi meaning belief in things, for exampke cookies, as I heard discussed? Thanks. Metta, Phil #118872 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:09 pm Subject: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) philofillet Hi Nina A continuation... N: > > Intellectually we know that what we take for a person are impermanent > > naamas and ruupas. Ph: But I guess all we can directly experience is rupa...visible object, hardness.. But does that mean beings don't have existence? Isn't the point of the Buddha's teaching to develop our understanding, for purification and luberation? The suttas tgat say "here no being is found" ( the nun and Mara, paraphrased) or "anyone who claims the existence of anything other than this All" ( SN 35, ayatanas are the All, paraphrased) are about the findings of developed understanding and how reality is cognized, the aim is liberation, not a scientic survey of existence. I can't explain well. But I have a hunch tgat tge Buddha didn't say there are no beings, he taught about how beings are understtod, seen, by tge liberated mind. So "no Nina" is not the point. But there is atta ditthi, belief in people and things, as wrong view, so I don't kniw, this is difficult for me. But I do know "there is no Nina" is not true for me yet. N: So long as there is not a beginning awareness of > > one characteristic at a time, even a beginning, the intellectual > > understanding of 'there are only naamas and ruupas' may not be > > convincing. Ph: Exactly! Let's get back to seing now and stop upsetting people (Lodewijk) or turning people off ( newcomers to Dhamma who have a chance to hear deeper and truer Dhamma from us than from pop teachers) by insisting immediately tgat peopke don't exist. I don't know, I might see this differently in 5 minutes, it is very difficult. N: I remember Kh S. explaining: when touching there is > > hardness and at that moment there is nothing else. There is nothing > > else in the world. It has a reason that she will always repeat what > > visible object is, what seeing is, and the fact that a person is not > > seen. To help us to attand to the characteristics of seeing and > > visible object. Ph: Bingo! > > Perhaps what I said above is the main cause of Lodewijk's > > difficulties. But it is difficult for all of us. It goes against our > > nature which is clinging. > > Ph: Birth, illness, ageing and death, they will go on and on and on until understands leads "us" out. Lodewijk has heard a lot of Dhamma in his life, tgere are pounts tgat upset him, but lots and lots of understanding has been accumulated, that is a very, very rare blessing. Metta, Phil #118873 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (and Alex) (118229) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: When the texts talk about insight/enlightenment with jhana as basis, it's not a case of jhana being *used* as basis. It's a case of jhana citta, or one of the cetasikas that are the jhana factors, being the object of insight. This will occur (or not) by conditions rather than by selection on the part of the individual. > > [RE:] Well, I do not know what the scriptural support will be for this one way or the other, but my understanding is that some of these factors are more powerful basis for insight and satipatthana for others, especially jhana. > =============== J: I don't think an object of panna can be a factor for insight (except as being object). What can be said, I think, is that enlightenment with jhana as basis requires a higher degree of panna than does enlightenment with any other dhamma as basis. But this does not mean that jhana is a more powerful factor for the arising of insight than other dhammas as object (sort of the opposite, in fact -- it requires more highly developed panna than do other objects). > =============== > [RE:] It is acknowledged even by those who think that "dry insight" is the most likely approach, at least these days, that satipatthana by way of jhana has powers and benefits that dry insight attainment does not have, and that Buddha said that enlightenment by way of jhana was the supreme path to enlightenment. I wonder whether one could even attain Buddhahood without jhana? > =============== J: Regarding "I wonder whether one could even attain Buddhahood without jhana?" Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that all Buddhas attain enlightenment with jhana as basis, this being the highest level of attainment possible (and Buddhas attain to a higher level of jhana/insight than any other being). But in the sense of jhana as object facilitating the development of insight, then no, that's not anywhere stated or implied, that I'm aware. > =============== > [RE:] It is also clear that jhana, unlike other "objects of insight," not only suppresses the defilements, but according to a number of sources including at least one sutta [quoted recently by Alex] wears down the defilements through accustoming the mind to function without them, and by prolonged wearing away through the jhanas, the defilements can even be eradicated. > =============== J: I remember the quoted passage you refer to, but do not agree with that interpretation of it. Perhaps Alex could re-post the quote se we could discuss it (Alex, if you see this, would you mind? Thanks.). > =============== [RE:] Jhana is a special state, a favorite of the Buddha's, and one that not only provides a supreme object of satipatthana, but als in itself provides great kusala benefits that are propitious for the development of satipatthana and attainment of enlightenment. > > I am not as clear as how dana and sila operate in this regard, but I would bet that restraint of the senses and of akusala kamma patha would likewise result in a wearing away and eventual eradication of the defilements, and thus remove obstacles to insight and satipatthana. But jhana without doubt is the most powerful developmental antidote for the defilements, for those who are capable of developing it. > =============== J: As far as the development of satipatthana/insight is concerned, it is the arising of panna rather than the suppression of the defilements that is key. As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, defilements, too, are to be seen with panna as they truly are, and this can only happen if panna arises in the midst of the defilements occurring. Enlightenment comes only when panna can see directly that all dhammas are truly anicca, dukkha and anatta. Here, 'all dhammas' includes defilements as well as wholesome qualities (as well as vipaka cittas and rupas). Being a person with defilements, even strong defilements, is not inimical to the development of sati/insight. It's the extent to which panna has been accumulated that is crucial. > =============== > > [J:] Look at it this way. When, for example, dana or hardness or body consciousness is object of insight, we do not speak of dana, hardness or body consciousness being *used* as basis for insight. It just happens to be the object. > > [RE:] I just don't think that the "buildup" and "surrounding accumulations" that allow for that moment to occur, are quite so arbitrary. Dana, sila and esp. jhana, are very *difficult* attainments, the result of *right effort* of various kinds, and when they are achieved, they have enormous kusala benefits that allow for the attainment of insight, satipatthana and enlightenment. > =============== J: I agree that dana, sila and samatha, to the extent that they have been developed, do indeed support the development of insight. But at the same time, there is no particular prerequisite level of any of these to beginning or continuing that development. And the development of sati/insight in turn supports and purifies the development of those other kinds of kusala. > =============== > > J: The notion of deeper insight during periods of the suppression of the hindrances brought about by attainment of jhana is not one that is stated in the texts. > > [RE:] Really? I think that Buddha states this constantly. In facts he talks about the attainment of the jhanas in order and how each one leads to a deeper state of refined awareness, ie, mindfulness. He talks about insight in a succeeding jhana, for instance, that the previous jhana was rough and coarse and that the mental factors in the next level jhana are more refined and aware. > =============== J: In agree in general with this description of the progression through the jhanas. But I understand the sati and panna that is associated with samatha development to be of a different order than that of satipatthana/insight. While the former knows kusala from akusala, it does not see dhammas as they truly are (this being the function of panna of satipatthana/insight development alone). > =============== > [RE:] I don't know how you can say that the "texts" do not say that deeper insight is attained through jhana, unless you insist that Buddha is just describing this or that state that "happened" to occur before deeper insight is attained. I doubt the Buddha would bother to highlight these systematic developments of jhana as precursor to insight if that were the case. > > In addition, I have quoted you the sutta in which Buddha states that the fourth jhana *is* the culmination of equanimity and satipatthana. And yet you still bypass that and say he never said anything! I just don't get it. > =============== J: You are referring, I think, to the description of Right Concentration. If I recall, I said that what was being described was the development of both insight and jhana, and you agreed with this comment. As regards the (numerous) suttas that describe the attainment of enlightenment following the attainment of jhana, I have always acknowledged that enlightenment with jhana as basis is a higher attainment, requiring more highly developed panna of the satipatthana/insight kind. However, I do not see these suttas as saying that the development of satipatthana/insight is dependent on the development of samatha as a prerequisite, or is specially facilitated by samatha/jhana (if either of these is what you're suggesting). I see those suttas as being directed to persons who have already attained to a high level of both samatha and insight. > =============== > [RE:] Here's another one, in plain English [from the plain Pali of course:] > > THE JHANA SUTTA > =============== J: Thanks for the sutta quote. Will get back to you on this and the rest of your post separately. Jon #118874 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----------- <. . .> >> KH: They can't agree on what those instructions are, and so their practices vary immensely and totally contradict one another. <. . .> > RE: I would disagree with this very strongly. Sure, there are variations in details in different Buddhist schools. But they are all based in breathing meditation, and all based in the development of mindfulness, and they all have a component of samatha, jhana or samadhi, by whatever name. They all adhere to the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path, and so they really have a lot more in common than in opposition to each other. ------------ KH: There may be something in what you say, but the fact remains there is no commonly agreed technique for "vipassana meditation." I can give details of where teachers have categorically denounced other teachers' methods. Basically, however, I think those disagreements are common knowledge. --------------- <. . .> > KH: No ordinary person could have made up a practice that had no practiser. > RE: This assertion is not evidence of anything, and I don't think it's true that Buddha taught 'no meditation,' ------------------ KH: Who says he did? The question is what *did* he teach, not what did he not teach. And one thing he did not teach was formal Buddhist practice! -------------------------- > RE: the opposite of what he said over and over again. -------------------------- KH: That's exactly what is in contention: what did the Buddha teach over and over again? ------------------ > RE: How do you reconcile that? It must be quite a trick. ------------------ KH: No reconciliation is necessary and there is no trick. It's just that you and I differ on what it was the Budddha taught. -------------------------- > RE: In any case, that is what Buddha did - as you say above - no ordinary person, he created a system of practice while teaching that there is no practicer. -------------------------- KH: How is that possible? Given that a practice by definition requires a practitioner, it is not possible. On the other hand, if the practice is performed, not by a person (not by you or I) but by impersonal, conditioned dhammas then we *can* say there is a both practice and no one who practises. But in order to reach that conclusion we would have to give up all ideas of performing the practice ourselves. It's simply not an option. -------------------------- > RE: Yes, that is amazing, and what's even more amazing is that one can sit down and study or sit down and practice and still realize that there is no self doing anything. -------------------------- KH: You have leapt from amazing to illogical. If there is no *one* there is no *one* who can do anything. End of story! (End of *logical* story.) --------------- > RE: What is the evidence --------------- KH: Right understanding. -------------------------- > RE: that the "path" was not meant to be followed, and the "practice" was not meant to be practiced? ----------------------------- KH: It was not meant to be followed by a permanent being (atta). ------------------- > RE: Not just your personal logic, or a repetition of the principle that you think is true, but evidence. ------------------- KH: Some see the Dhamma as evidence of anatta; others see it as evidence of atta. I can't help that. :-) ------------------------------ > RE: Where is it asserted that the practice happens by itself and one should not do anything to follow the path. Where is that stated in scripture? -------------------------- KH: Please don't resort to cheap debating tricks. We have explained to you endlessly that there is no one who "should" or "should not" do anything. And we have explained that the practice happens by conditions, not "by itself". And there is no one who can influence those conditions. ------------------------------------------ <. . .> > RE: Well that is another interesting assertion. I think it also frames the issue very well. Is it possible to carry out a set of instructions with no one to carry them out? > I would offer an analogous question to make clear why I think it is very possible: Is it possible for a computer to follow out a set of instructions and then do a series of operations to reach a particular conclusion based on the input of a certain set of conditions? Of course. Does a computer have a self 'making' it do those operations and coordinating or controlling them? Of course not. ------------------------------------------- KH: Good question, thanks. A concept of a computer is a concept of a self (atta). If a computer could ultimately do something then atta could ultimately do something. And the Buddha's teaching would be horribly wrong. But not to worry! There is ultimately no computer and no atta. There are only dhammas. All ideas about what a computer might do or not do are just that - ideas. ---------------- <> RE: I would really appreciate a clear answer with citations to my questions above. They get asked many times, but I've never seen a clear scriptural citation that backs up your claim that the Buddha said not to practice meditation or any other activity to follow the path. Is there one? If so, I can see your source materials and stop saying that you "made it up." ----------------- KH: Grrrrrrrrrr! Ken H #118875 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:04 pm Subject: Re: Lost thread kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ----- <. . .> S: I'd like to see a copy of your note if you'd care to share it here. I'm sure it'll be kind and helpful. > > Sometimes when we're sick, injured or have major 'setbacks' it can be hard to remember 'the big picture' - what's really important in life, i.e understanding any moment at all. ----- KH: I still haven't written it. It was going to be to someone I know only through a (non-Buddhist) internet forum. He is a very popular man both on the forum and in the real world and is surrounded by family and friends. One thing that occurs to me, however, is that everyone is saying "please get well . . . get well soon . . . get back to being your old self again." And so, with the best of intentions, they are saying his current condition is not acceptable to them. It's as if a sick person is of no value. I'd like to remind him that the Dhamma is always the same and he can be perfectly content knowing `in the seen there is only the seen' and that sort of thing. But the chances are he is a Dalai Lama kind of Buddhist and wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about! :-) I'll wait for a while. Speaking of lost threads, there's another one where you have been explaining about sakkaya ditthi, and I have been meaning to ask a question. Is it possible that belief in the existence of other sentient beings is just ordinary atta-ditthi, and only belief in oneself as a sentient being is sakkaya-ditthi? Ken H #118876 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:37 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Was Buddha an incapable teacher who couldn't be clear? dhammasaro Good friend Alex, et al Please note the "canon" applies to the Tipitaka and more; not, just the Sutta-Pitaka. See: Tipitaka The Pali Canon Web site: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/ yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: truth_aerator@... <....> Are you saying that Buddha was such an inept, inarticulate, forgetful and misleading teacher who couldn't be clear in the suttas and who didn't give enough information to be understood? With all of that, people who followed his advice were getting awakened by the thousands... "An official view is given by a spokesman for the Buddha Sasana Council of Burma: the Canon contains everything needed to show the path to nirvana;" - Morgan, Path of the Buddha, Ronald Press, New York, 1956, pages v, 71 Please note that it is officoal position that suttas are enough for Nibbana. <...> #118877 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:02 pm Subject: Re: non-self, to Victor. philofillet Hello Nina, and all I like this post you wrote to someone who liked to say "prove to me from the suttas that the Buddha said there is no self who can do anything." : > Dear Victor, you wrote: how do you digest that there is no self doing > anything. Lodewijk, my husband, said, tell him that I do not digest it > either. That is very honest, because so long as we are not sotapanna we have > not digested the fact that there is no "I" who can do anything as to the > development of understanding, it is all dependent on many conditions. > You have asked the same question about non-self many times to different > people, and maybe you were not satisfied with the answers. You are looking > for something but have not found it. > We heard A. Sujin say in India: "We say there is no self, but do we > understand realities as nama dhamma and as rupa dhamma? " We should be very > sincere as to the answer. > I think debates on words such as self and non-self, thus, thinking of words > cannot help to really understand what nama and rupa are. These have to be > investigated as they occur in our life now. > This is different from just thinking of words. We can even leave out the > words self and non-self, but try to find out more about our life, do you > like this better? I do not know what you are interested in, what you like to > study. > I discussed with Lodewijk Pavlov reactions, it tells us something about the > uncontrollability of realities. For us, there is someone who always provokes > us so that it becomes nerve racking. I know that is lack of patience. There > are moments that dosa becomes so strong, but all such happenings are > conditioned. When you suddenly feel violent pain, there is painful feeling > and immediately there is bound to be aversion with unpleasant feeling. Can > you change this? No Victor who is the owner of such sensations, it is > because of conditions. Now you are reading on the computer, but there is > also seeing, different moments because of conditions. Seeing and thinking, > maybe with aversion, who knows, but they all arise because of different > conditioning factors. You hear a noise from outside, can you change this? Do > you own hearing or what you hear? Can you control it? You could verify this. > Gradually we may understand more about conditions for the dhammas that > arise, and finally you may understand that there is no Victor who really > exists, but that there are only fleeting, insignificant phenomena. But to > really understand this thoroughly is a long way of development. Only the > enlightened person has no more doubts. > You often quote suttas, and of course it is good to read them. But it is not > easy to understand suttas, so much more is implied than we would think. We > read about seeing and hearing and we may let it go, but, these should be > investigated so that we gain more understanding of all these phenomena. If > we neglect this we shall not understand the suttas. Jon said in India: > realities are not what we think they are. We interprate the world and > ourselves wrongly without realizing it. > Your question was a good reminder for me of the long way we have to go in > order to understand realities. > Best wishes, Nina. > #118878 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation. was: What is the method... nilovg Dear Alex, I had to change the heading, :-(( Op 17-okt-2011, om 18:58 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. > Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into > regret. This is our message to you all."" - MN106 ------- N: I just requote what I formerly wrote: We read in the Commentary to the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I, sutta 8) about two meanings of the expression: meditate (jhyath). The objects of meditation or contemplation, jhna, can be the thirtyeight objects of samatha or the characteristics beginning with impermanence (anicca) of the khandhas and the ytanas( sense-fields). The Commentary states: It is said: Develop samatha and vipassan. It repeats that one should not be negligent. We read in the Subcommentary to this passage: With mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati-sampajaa), which means: by grasping with thorough comprehension. --------- The Atthaslin (Expositor, Part V, Ch I, 167), with regard to contemplation of the object, uses the term upanijjhna, and explains this as twofold: as closely examining the object, which are the meditation subjects of samatha; and as examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatt. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called characteristic examining jhna. ------- Nina. #118879 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept of citta and tilakkhana nilovg Dear Alex, Op 17-okt-2011, om 18:20 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Since a citta cannot know its own characteristics, and only one > citta exists at a time, it means that what one is subsequently > aware of is of characteristics of citta that does not exist > anymore. So one in all cases has conceptual understanding. > Understanding is done with subsequent citta after the original > citta ceased. ----- N: What you say here is true. Except: 'So one in all cases has conceptual understanding.' In that case the eightfold Path could not be developed. This subject touches on sa"nkhaara nimitta and I quote what I formerly wrote: When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: These are only words. If we use the word concept there is something that is experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to use any term. She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right now. She said: It is this moment. Visible object impinges on the eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the impression or sign, nimitta of visible object. It seems that visible object lasts for a while, but in reality it arises and falls away. Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that is swung around. In this way, we have the impression of a whole, of a circle of light. We know that seeing arises at this moment, but we cannot pinpoint the citta which sees, it arises and falls away very rapidly and another moment of seeing arises. We only experience the sign of seeing. The notion of nimitta can remind us that not just one moment of seeing appears, but many moments that are arising and falling away. Also visible object is not as solid as we would think, there are many moments arising and falling away which leave the sign or impression of visible object. Visible object that was experienced by cittas of a sense-door process has fallen away; sense-door processes and mind-door processes of cittas alternate very rapidly. Visible object impinges again and again and seeing arises again and again. When their characteristics appear we cannot count the different units of rpa or the cittas that see, they arise and fall away; the impression of what is seen and of the seeing appears. Acharn Sujin said: No matter whether we call it nimitta or not, it is appearing now. Whatever appears is the sign or nimitta of the dhamma that arises and falls away. Seeing arising at this moment sees visible object. We notice visible object and while we notice it, we have a vivid impression of it, but it has just fallen away. Seeing falls away but extremely shortly after it has fallen away another moment of seeing arises that experiences visible object. It arises again and again and in between one notices that there is seeing, or, if there are the right conditions a citta with sati can arise that is mindful of its characteristic. However, mindfulness of seeing arises after seeing has fallen away, not at the same time as seeing. ------- There can also be awareness of akusala, but not at the same time. Still, it is possible for pa~n~naa to know characteristics that have just fallen away. Otherwise defilements could never be eradicated. Nina. #118880 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: non-self, to Victor. nilovg Dear Phil, Thanks for quoting. I pass it on to Lodewijk. Nina. Op 18-okt-2011, om 11:02 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Dear Victor, you wrote: how do you digest that there is no self doing > > anything. #118881 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:30 pm Subject: Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Abhidhamma experts I find it difficult to understand how sanna functions. The folliwing is from a book called Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G Mendis. Does this description of the functioning iof sanna sound correct to you? Thanks for pointing out any suspect points: "Memory occurs not through a single factor but through a complex process in which perception plays the most important role. When the mind first cognizes an object through the senses, perception "picks out" the object's distinctive mark. When the same object is met with on a subsequent occasion, perception again notices that its distinctive mark is identical with the previous one. It "grasps" the identity of the distinctive marks. This "grasping" is a complex series of thought processes, one of which connects the present object with the previous one and another attaches to the present object the previous one's name. Memory will be good if this "grasping" functions well, and "grasping" will function well if the initial "picking out" of the object's distinctive marks was clear, not obscured by irrelevant thoughts. Clear perception comes through attention. As the Buddha says: "In what is seen there must be just the seen, in what is heard there must be just the heard, in what is sensed there must be just the sensed, in what is thought there must be just the thought."" Ph: How can sanna "pick out a distinctive mark of an object" if objects don't exist in reality? Does the author mean visible object when he says 'an object'? Metta, Phil #118882 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/18/2011 7:30:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Ph: How can sanna "pick out a distinctive mark of an object" if objects don't exist in reality? Does the author mean visible object when he says 'an object'? =============================== I don't think we should get hung up on this "reality business". Bringing reality or conventional status into everything just muddies the waters, it seems to me. I happen to view all conditioned phenomena as matters of convention when viewed as separate and unchanging things, for even rupas arise, then change while standing, and then fade away, and where and when "a warmth," for example, begins and ends is not discernable. But that is just my perspective and isn't very important. Instances of what we call "warmth" certainly occur. Debating whether to call them "real" or "conventional" doesn't do us much good in seeing that clinging to them is dukkha and that these objects themselves are dukkha (in the sense of being unsatisfactory and serving as conditions for suffering). When there is consciousness of warmth, the quality of it, the degree of it, the physical "location" of it, etc, either simultaneously or sequentially are noted by what we call perception. That is the marking phase (or several such) of sa~n~na. The comparing of it with the marks of prior warmths that wordlessly identifies this percept as "warmth," is the recognition function of sa~n~na. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118883 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] K. Sujin Discussions on Nimitta and Sati-Feb. 6 (was: Re: Khandhas and samsara) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 18-okt-2011, om 1:52 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: I was sorry to hear about Lodewijk's health problems, it must > be upsetting. We are not Ariyans, atta view.. > ---- N: Thank you for your concern. As you say: atta view. > ------ > A Sujin brings us back again and again to the present reality, and > at such moments of experiencing hardness, visible object, sound, > undeniably "there is no Nina." But such moments are so rare that > taking "there is no Nina" as our basis for understanding people > feels...unwise. Back again and again to seeing visible object etc. > Atta ditthi can only be eradicated gradually, patiently, with > courage and good cheer. ------ N: The present reality is the answer. Lodewijk liked your quote of my old post to Victor. ------- Nina. #118884 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:32 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. I've never heard of asking for a citation or evidence that something is in a teaching called "a cheap debating trick." You are saying that yo already know that no one practices and that's the evidence. That's not evidence, that's an opinion. When I ask for a citation that the path "happens by itself without a practitioner" or that "one should not practice meditation" I am asking for a citation from the Buddha, the Teacher who created the Teaching. That is not unreasonable. There's got to be something you've read in Dhamma that leads you to this conclusion that you have. Give a quote. It's a sincere request, not a debating tactic. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: Rob E.: > > I would offer an analogous question to make clear why I think it is very > possible: Is it possible for a computer to follow out a set of instructions and > then do a series of operations to reach a particular conclusion based on the > input of a certain set of conditions? Of course. Does a computer have a self > 'making' it do those operations and coordinating or controlling them? Of course > not. > ------------------------------------------- > > KH: Good question, thanks. > > A concept of a computer is a concept of a self (atta). If a computer could ultimately do something then atta could ultimately do something. And the Buddha's teaching would be horribly wrong. > > But not to worry! There is ultimately no computer and no atta. There are only dhammas. All ideas about what a computer might do or not do are just that - ideas. > > ---------------- > <> > RE: I would really appreciate a clear answer with citations to my > questions above. They get asked many times, but I've never seen a clear > scriptural citation that backs up your claim that the Buddha said not to > practice meditation or any other activity to follow the path. Is there one? If so, I can see your source materials and stop saying that you "made it up." > ----------------- > > KH: Grrrrrrrrrr! > > Ken H > #118885 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:23 am Subject: Re: wholes and parts = concepts moellerdieter Hi Alex (and Howard), you wrote: "Nagasena refutes the idea of *permanent* individual or a *permanent* thing. Not individual in a inconstant, conditioned and empiric sense, but *permanent* individual. The sutta has an important verse at the end which some people miss. The Vajira sutta concludes with: "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."This is quite appropriate for sutta dealing with anicca. As we know, what is anicca is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta. As for "whole is made of parts thus it doesn't exist" isn't a very solid argument. "Whole" and "parts" are conceptual distinctions. You will never find them in experience themselves D:I agree with you what Nagasena had in mind : emphasizing that there is nothing like a permanent person or thing , however the text as well as in VisM , like I quoted, can indeed be understood to question the reality of the individuum at all. We may involve in our consideration the Abhidhammic 'concept of concept ' too. A:. tree is a whole when compared to its leaves, but that tree is a part of ecosystem. So it is relative when it comes to what is whole and what is part. The "whole" cannot exist without its "parts", but neither can the "parts" be without a "whole" which they make up. Big is relative to small, and no amount is inherently big or small. 100 is big compared to 1, but small compared with 1000. Is 100 big or small? It depends on what you measure it against. It has no inherent "bigness" or "smallness". D: reality is rather unique to the individual ( assuming that the individual is real and so the experience ). As you mention big or small depends on the angle of view : from 'strings to multiverses ' .. the knack: what is significant?! with Metta Dieter #118886 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., (Ken H., Jon,) R: "...You are saying that you already know that no one practices and that's the evidence. That's not evidence, that's an opinion. When I ask for a citation that the path 'happens by itself without a practitioner' or that 'one should not practice meditation' I am asking for a citation from the Buddha, the Teacher who created the Teaching. That is not unreasonable. There's got to be something you've read in Dhamma that leads you to this conclusion that you have. Give a quote. It's a sincere request, not a debating tactic." Scott: I've read the discussions you have with Jon, who comments on quote after quote from the suttas. In these discussions you merely assert your own interpretation of the quotes offered. The 'give a quote' game is a ruse since, in your case, you only accept sutta quotes on a list where many consider the whole of the Paa.li canon to have textual relevance. And then you offer your own interpretation as fact. It's a bit like wanting to gag a discussant before asking to hear him or her speak. It's a debating tactic. I don't think that many readers can accept the claim of sincerity you make above. Scott. #118887 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:19 am Subject: Striver? Re this! ( wasRe: "ritual" [reply to Erik] philofillet Hi all A great post for "striving" pushers (There is some not-directly-related material near the end that I couldn't snip, lack of striving? ) : > "Consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the > components of each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five > faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the > noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam > tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty > of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor > (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, > endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost > exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having > sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, > discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, > power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of > endeavor." > > Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! This > is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula- > cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya > cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What > at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is > mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder > and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking > zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering > endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not > relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as > the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at that > time is the faculty of endeavor." > > The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph > contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to > toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is > critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" > or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment > and understanding. Is this done via ritual? I don't think so.** > > ___________________________ > -> Dan: Understanding does not arise from ritual or from a recipe > book. > > -> Erik: Just like a meal doesn't arise from a recipe book. It takes > the appropriate ingredients, cooked according to the recipe, to wind > up with a satisfying meal. > > ** Dan: For delighting the senses, there is no substitute for a good > recipe, followed correctly! For nourishing the body, there is no need > for recipe books. Do we eat for nourishment or delighting the senses? > ** > > __________________________ > -> Erik: Here's one dictionary definition > for "descriptive": "Involving or characterized by description; > serving to describe." > > Here's one of the definitions for "prescriptive": "Making or giving > injunctions, directions, laws, or rules." > > Based on the definitions of the terms, is "there is the case where a > monk develops..." descriptive or prescriptive? Does it describe what > already is (descriptive)? or does it prescribe (sorry, can't avoid > using the word here) a course of action to be taken? > > ** Dan: Unclear. If you were to say "There is the case where a monk > develops satipatthana by doing such and such," I'd say it sounded > prescriptive. But I don't recall having seen that format in the > suttas. I have seen something like: "There is the case where a monk > discerns such and such when doing such and such." This is > descriptive. ** > > ____________________________ > -> Dan: Ritual can be so comforting... It takes great confidence in > the Buddha and his Dhamma to abandon clinging to ritual. > > -> Erik: And views even more so than ritual. > > ** Dan: Hmmm... I look at them as parts of the same parcel of fetters > to be broken at precisely the same moment, and precisely because they > are so closely related. Could you elaborate on what you mean? ** > > > > Dan > #118888 From: "Christine" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:52 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" > > Scott: I've read the discussions you have with Jon, who comments on quote after quote from the suttas. In these discussions you merely assert your own interpretation of the quotes offered. The 'give a quote' game is a ruse since, in your case, you only accept sutta quotes on a list where many consider the whole of the Paa.li canon to have textual relevance. And then you offer your own interpretation as fact. It's a bit like wanting to gag a discussant before asking to hear him or her speak. It's a debating tactic. I don't think that many readers can accept the claim of sincerity you make above. > Hello Scott, Rob is regarded as sincere, and many share his frustration. Could you please link to where Jon has given 'quote after quote from the suttas'? with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #118889 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:10 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Chris, C: "Rob is regarded as sincere, and many share his frustration. Could you please link to where Jon has given 'quote after quote from the suttas'?" Scott: Why do you ask? The tactic of asking for quote after quote, to no apparent avail, *is*, *in my opinion*, an insincere one. If one asks for a quote and then overturns it, then one might question the utility of the request. Ken H. said as much (where is your post to him?). You of course needn't agree. This is a very old debate here, Chris, as you should know. My statement was straight-forward, non-vitriolic, non-hyperbolic. After a request yesterday from the moderators to tone-down posts I immediately complied, assuming it was directed at me (you can look at posts which come after the edict, if you wish). Please start with Jon's most recent reply to Rob E. and continue back from there, following Jon's replies. If you are frustrated with me, well, I'm not sure what you want to do about that. Scott. #118890 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation. was: What is the method... truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, > Dear Alex, > > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. > > Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into > > regret. This is our message to you all."" - MN106 > ------- > N: I just requote what I formerly wrote: > >We read in the Commentary to the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I, sutta 8) >about two meanings of the expression: meditate (jhyath). The >objects of meditation or contemplation, jhna, can be the >thirtyeight >objects of samatha or the characteristics beginning with impermanence >(anicca) of the khandhas and the ytanas( sense-fields). The >============ Buddha taught Noble Eightfold path which includes right view, sati and jhana, 1st, 7th and 8th factors. Of course wisdom needs to happen, I haven't said or implied otherwise. I believe that right view is a must. Jhana is done with wisdom. With best wishes, Alex #118891 From: "Christine" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:40 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) christine_fo... Hello Scott, As you had mentioned in the thread that there were numbers of these Sutta quotes from Jon, I felt you were familiar with what Jon wrote and the location of the posts you were referring to. I believed that it was O.K. to ask you for help in finding them the usual supportive thing to do on a discussion list, and something I've always been happy to do for others. So I was surprised at your response, and the way you took one sentence in defense of Rob E to be an attack on you. It wasn't. I don't deride, attack, sneer, or denigrate others on Lists - I simply don't engage with them further on the particular topic. The only post from Jon that I can find in this thread is: Khandas and Samsara http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118744 So .. if you or anyone (Jon or Sarah?) has a link, I would be grateful to be read the sutta quotes. With metta and karuna, Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > #118892 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:53 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Chris, C: "...I simply don't engage with them further on the particular topic." Scott: I consider you to be a knowledgeable student of the Dhamma and, as I've invited you earlier, would be pleased to engage with you in discussion should you wish. Should you not wish to engage with me, that would be fine as well. Scott. #118893 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:57 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J:What can be said, I think, is that enlightenment with jhana as >basis requires a higher degree of panna than does enlightenment with >any other dhamma as basis. >=============================== Jhana "as basis or not", is part of Noble Eightfold path as taught by the Buddha. "In a person of right concentration, right knowledge. In a person of right knowledge, right release." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.103.than.html I don't think that I need to provide quotes showing that Samma-Samadhi is 4 Jhanas. >=============== > > [RE:] It is also clear that jhana, unlike other "objects of insight," not only suppresses the defilements, but according to a number of sources including at least one sutta [quoted recently by Alex] wears down the defilements through accustoming the mind to function without them, and by prolonged wearing away through the jhanas, the defilements can even be eradicated. > > =============== > > J: I remember the quoted passage you refer to, but do not agree with that interpretation of it. Perhaps Alex could re-post the quote se we could discuss it (Alex, if you see this, would you mind? Thanks.). > 239. One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver. - Dhp 239 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.18.budd.html Maybe RobE is referring to this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.206.than.html "There are these gross impurities in gold: dirty sand, gravel, & grit. The dirt-washer or his apprentice, having placed [the gold] in a vat, washes it again & again until he has washed them away. "When he is rid of them, there remain the moderate impurities in the gold: coarse sand & fine grit. He washes the gold again & again until he has washed them away. "When he is rid of them, there remain the fine impurities in the gold: fine sand & black dust. The dirt-washer or his apprentice washes the gold again & again until he has washed them away. "When he is rid of them, there remains just the gold dust. The goldsmith or his apprentice, having placed it in a crucible, blows on it again & again to blow away the dross. The gold, as long as it has not been blown on again & again to the point where the impurities are blown away, as long as it is not refined & free from dross, is not pliant, malleable, or luminous. It is brittle and not ready to be worked. But there comes a time when the goldsmith or his apprentice has blown on the gold again & again until the dross is blown away. The gold, having been blown on again & again to the point where the impurities are blown away, is then refined, free from dross, pliant, malleable, & luminous. It is not brittle, and is ready to be worked. Then whatever sort of ornament he has in mind whether a belt, an earring, a necklace, or a gold chain the gold would serve his purpose. "In the same way, there are these gross impurities in a monk intent on heightened mind: misconduct in body, speech, & mind. These the monk aware & able by nature abandons, destroys, dispels, wipes out of existence. When he is rid of them, there remain in him the moderate impurities: thoughts of sensuality, ill will, & harmfulness. These he abandons, destroys, dispels, wipes out of existence. When he is rid of them there remain in him the fine impurities: thoughts of his caste, thoughts of his home district, thoughts related to not wanting to be despised. These he abandons, destroys, dispels, wipes out of existence. "When he is rid of them, there remain only thoughts of the Dhamma. His concentration is neither calm nor refined, it has not yet attained serenity or unity, and is kept in place by the fabrication of forceful restraint. But there comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, grows unified & concentrated. His concentration is calm & refined, has attained serenity & unity, and is no longer kept in place by the fabrication of forceful restraint. "And then whichever of the higher knowledges he turns his mind to know & realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there is an opening. ... "If he wants, then through the ending of the mental effluents, he remains in the effluent-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having known and made them manifest for himself right in the here and now. He can witness this for himself whenever there is an opening." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.100.01-10.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118894 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:00 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and a PS to Chuck), ------ > RE: I've never heard of asking for a citation or evidence that something is in a teaching called "a cheap debating trick." ------ KH: That's not what I was talking about it. By the way, when you wrote the above, did you know that was not what I was talking about? Because if you did, that would be just one more cheap debating trick, wouldn't it? :-) Getting back to what I actually was talking about, this is what you had written: ------ >>> RE: Where is it asserted that the practice happens by itself and one should not do anything to follow the path. Where is that stated in scripture?" ------ KH: And so I replied with: ---------- >> KH: Please don't resort to cheap debating tricks. We have explained to you endlessly that there is no one who "should" or "should not" do anything. >> And we have explained that the practice happens by conditions, not "by itself". And there is no one who can influence those conditions. >> ---------- KH: And now you have said: ----------------------- > RE: I've never heard of asking for a citation or evidence that something is in a teaching called "a cheap debating trick." ----------------------- KH: So do you see what is happening here? How many times have I answered your question and how many times have I asked you not to claim that I have never answered it? Lately I have been prefacing my answer with, "For the millionth time . . ." I once asked Alex to actually search the archives and to try to find just one place where someone at DSG has said "Do not meditate," or to find just one place where someone has said "The Buddha said "Do not meditate." Now I am asking you to do the same. Please find one DSG post where someone has said, "Do not meditate" or one DSG post where someone has said "The Buddha said do not meditate." Ken H PS: Chuck, I posted a reply to you yesterday but there has been no sign of it. It wasn't important but I will send a copy if it doesn't turn up soon. #118895 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:16 am Subject: "he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. " truth_aerator Hello Scott, Christine, all, Christine asked a very fair question. Why such a response? I'll remind some things that suttas say. I do not know how Buddha could have been even more clear when He said that: "with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth he ***should*** beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire (chando), effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts imbued with desire, aversion or delusion still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "And what, monks, is right effort? "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." [alex: I've removed repetitions] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html The Buddha is clear that there is intentional effort. With best wishes, Alex #118896 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:25 am Subject: no jhanas= no right knowledge. AN10.103 & AN5.51 truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J: There is no such thing in the texts as insight that is 'based >on >suppression of the hindrances'. >======= "In a person of right concentration, right knowledge. In a person of right knowledge, right release." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.103.than.html Please note: No possibility is given for right knowledge without right concentration (which is defined as 4 Jhanas which suppress the defilements). No possibility for wisdom without suppresion of 5 defilements (AN5.51) ================= "when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment: for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible. "Now, when a monk has abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is strong in discernment: for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is possible. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.051.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118897 From: "Christine" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:31 am Subject: Re: "he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. " christine_fo... Thanks Alex! You are very kind. :-) I am also aware that there are many references to the Buddha teaching about meditation on the Access to Insight site: Meditation http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#meditation with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---It is not what happens to you in life that is important it's what you do with it--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > I'll remind some things that suttas say. I do not know how Buddha could have been even more clear when He said that: [......} > The Buddha is clear that there is intentional effort. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #118898 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:33 am Subject: Striver? Re this! ( wasRe: "ritual" [reply to Erik] truth_aerator Hello Phil, Striving hard to get some extra material goodies, rob a bank, is a wrong effort. Striving for craving to fade through wisdom is right effort. Buddha has never defined rites & rituals to include meditation. Never. Furthermore, Noble Eightfold path is the path to the cessation of clinging, and it, unfortunately, includes Jhanas. MN9 "The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html With best wishes, Alex #118899 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am Subject: Re: wholes and parts = concepts truth_aerator Hi Dieter, >Hi Alex (and Howard), >D:I agree with you what Nagasena had in mind : emphasizing that >there is nothing like a permanent person or thing , however the text >as well as in VisM , like I quoted, >can indeed be understood to question the reality of the individuum >at all. >============================================ "I visited all quarters with my mind. Nor found I any dearer than myself; Self is likewise to every other dear; Who loves himself will never harm another' (S.i,75; Ud. 47)". - VsM IX,10 !!! >D: reality is rather unique to the individual ( assuming that the >individual is real and so the experience ). >========= If you are hungry and I eat, your hunger will not be satiated. If you, not me, eat, then your hunger will be satiated. If I hit my toe, I feel the pain - not you. When you hit your toe against something, you feel pain - not me. >D:...what is significant?! >=========================== Only the mind can give personal significance to something. With best wishes, Alex #118900 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:26 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., (Ken H., Jon,) > > R: "...You are saying that you already know that no one practices and that's the evidence. That's not evidence, that's an opinion. > When I ask for a citation that the path 'happens by itself without a practitioner' or that 'one should not practice meditation' I am asking for a citation from the Buddha, the Teacher who created the Teaching. That is not unreasonable. There's got to be something you've read in Dhamma that leads you to this conclusion that you have. Give a quote. It's a sincere request, not a debating tactic." > > Scott: I've read the discussions you have with Jon, who comments on quote after quote from the suttas. In these discussions you merely assert your own interpretation of the quotes offered. The 'give a quote' game is a ruse since, in your case, you only accept sutta quotes on a list where many consider the whole of the Paa.li canon to have textual relevance. And then you offer your own interpretation as fact. It's a bit like wanting to gag a discussant before asking to hear him or her speak. It's a debating tactic. I don't think that many readers can accept the claim of sincerity you make above. a/ I did not say a sutta quote. I will be happy to see a quote that demonstrates your view from *any* Buddhist scripture. In fact, I would be very happy to see commentaries, subcommentaries or Abhidhamma quotes that say directly what you keep saying about the path. b/ Why I argue about sutta quotes is that I go by what they say, subject to valid explanations that don't go in the opposite direction from the sutta. If you offered a direct quote from the Buddha saying what you say, I would not be able to argue with that. I'd have to incorporate, explain or accept it. I think the above is the only basis for saying "this is the Buddha's teaching," rather than one's own preferred path. And like I said, I will be *very* interested for anything that directly states your view from any ancient Buddhist commentary. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118901 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:29 am Subject: Striver? Re this! ( wasRe: "ritual" [reply to Erik] philofillet Hi Alex > Striving hard to get some extra material goodies, rob a bank, is a wrong effort. Striving for craving to fade through wisdom is right effort. Ph: Please read descriptions of right and wrong effort again and reflect > Buddha has never defined rites & rituals to include meditation. Ph: I would have edited out the reference to rituals, I wanted Strivers! to reflect that wrong effort includes many of their favourite Striving! things. As for rituals, samattha for monks, not a ritual, samattha for people who are impeded in the ways taught in Vism but lack understanding to know it, well you tell me. At least you are wise enough not to try because of your heath, that shows some understanding. As for "satipatthana meditation" for urban. householders who go on retreats and follow instructions never given by the Buddha, including dooooiiinnng eeeevvveeeryyyythingggg reeeeaaaalllyyyy slooohhhhhhhhhhhlllyyyyyyyy..,,,yes, following a ritual while tighly wrapped up in ignorance and wrong view... Strive! on Alex metta, phil #118902 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Howard Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Metta Phil #118903 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:33 am Subject: The Calm Power! bhikkhu5 Friends: Inner Tranquillity is a Mental Power! In what sense is calm a power? In the 1st jhna this mental calm does not waver even when attacked by the 5 mental hindrances, thus is calm a power! In the 2nd jhna this serenity does not flicker by any thoughts or thinking, thus is calm a power... In the subtle mental sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this tranquil composure does not hesitate when faced with void empty nothingness, thus is calm a power! Such silenced imperturbability can neither waver, nor vacillate, nor hesitate in any unstable indecisiveness despite being provoked by agitation, confusion, distraction and perturbation, therefore is calmness a power. Such is the power of calm: The calm power! Vism 703 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #118904 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E Check it out, your b/ negated your a/. You will always come back to sutta quotes. If Scott offers terms in Pali, you will insist on an English translation instead of looking into the terms. To understand Abhidhamma, you have to study it and gradually understand it, not ask for "quotes", the power breakfast of the modern Buddhist. Since you've been here 10 years and haven't made a concentrated effort to learn about Abhudhamma, maybe time to stop pretending you are interested in anything other than the suttanta? Then again, as I said once to you re your asumptions about what Ken would say by pretending to be him, we shoyldn't assume that people's ideas are fixed and will never change. But doubt is doubt, it arises! Get thee to thy stydy chamber, and stop asking for quotes, this isn't a playground, we aren't collecting Pokemon cards or whatever it is kids collect these days. Get serious!( Talk about the pot calling the pot bl... er...African Am...er, North American. ) Metta, Phil #118905 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Phil, R: "...I will be *very* interested for anything that directly states your view from any ancient Buddhist commentary." Scott: We'll see what happens next, Rob and Phil. Bear with the length. Within this very concise and dense section you can find pretty well all of the various dsg pets. Here, from the Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion). Commentary to Vibha"nga: "240. In such passages as 'Materiality, bhikkhus, is impermanent; what is impermanent is painful, what is painful is not self; what is not-self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not myself' (S iii 82), he taught the characteristic of no-self by means of both the impermanent and suffering. "241. Why? Because of the obviousness of impermanence and suffering. For when a plate or a saucer or whatever it may be falls from the hand and breaks, they say: 'Ah, Impermanence,' thus impermanence is obvious. But as regards the person (attabhaava), when boils and carbuncles and the like have sprung up, or when pierced by splinters and thorns, etc., they say 'Ah! The pain.' Thus pain is obvious. The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known. "242. The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Enlightened Ones; it is made known only on the arising of the Enlightened Ones. For such wanderers and ascetics (taapasa) as the master Sarabha"nga are mighty and powerful and are able to express 'the impermanent and painful': [but] they are unable to express 'no-self'. For if they were able to express 'no-self' in a present assembly there would be penetration of path and fruition in the present assembly. For making known of the characteristic of no-self is not in the province of anyone else, it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only. Thus the characteristic of no-self is unobvious. That is why the Master, when teaching the characteristic of no-self, taught it by means of impermanence or by means of pain or by means of both impermanence and pain. But here it should be understood that he taught it by means of both impermanence and pain. "243. But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of what and owing to concealment of what that these characteristics do not appear? Firstly the characteristic of impermanence does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating rise and fall owing to its being concealed by continuity (santati). The characteristic of pain does not appear does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha). The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness. But when continuity is dissected by laying hold of rise and fall, the characteristic of impermanence appears in accordance with its true essential nature. When the postures are exposed (ugghaa.tita) by keeping in mind continual oppression, the characteristics of pain appears in accordance with its essential nature. When resolving the compact (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its essential nature. "244. And here the following difference should be understood: impermanence and the characteristic of impermanence, pain and the characteristic of pain, no-self and the characteristic of no-self. "245. Herein, the five aggregates (pa~ncakhandha) are impermanent. Why? Because they rise and fall and change, or because of their absence of having been. Rise and fall and change are the characteristic of impermanence, or mode of alteration (aakaaravikaara) called absence of having been. "246. But those same five aggregates are painful because of the words 'what is impermanent is painful' (S iv 1). Why? Because of continual oppression. The mode of being continually oppressed is the characteristic of pain. "247. But those same five aggregates are no-self because of the words 'what is painful is no-self' (S iv 1) Why? Because there is no exercising power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having power exerted over them is the characteristic of no-self. "248. That is why the impermanent, the painful and the no-self are one thing and the characteristics of impermanence, pain and no-self are another. For that which consists of the five aggregates, the twelve bases, the eighteen elements is all impermanent, painful and no-self; the modes of alteration of the kind aforesaid are the characteristics of impermanence, pain and no-self.' Scott. #118906 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Check it out, your b/ negated your a/. You will always come back to sutta quotes. No, my /b/ was about Scott's comments on sutta quotes. It was not about /a/ which stands alone. I am not saying I would accept commentary on the same exact par with sutta, but I would definitely take it as a source of distinction, and it would give a basis for my consideration. Meanwhile there are *no* direct cites or quotes from *any* Buddhist scripture that says that one should not practice because it promotes self-view, or that Buddha meant practice to only include naturally arising dhammas, and not formal meditation. I have not seen such a quote that says what adherents here say from Abhidhamma, from commentary or from sub-commentary. And I think it would really be worthwhile to know whether any of these sources of great distinction in the Buddhist canon *ever say this* or if those are conclusions drawn by a modern group based on their interpretation of scripture. I think it's amazing that no such quote has appeared or can be easily offered, apparently, don't you? Let Scott offer such a quote if it exists and stop making excuses, and you too. > If Scott offers terms in Pali, you will insist on an English translation instead of looking into the terms. Only if I don't know the terms and don't know where to find them. I looked up vipassana and panna and looked into their relation when we were having that discussion, and I looked back into vittakha and vicara and read up on some of the references to discuss them more fully with Scott. It's not that I won't make any effort to understand things as Scott asserts, and you gamely agree with. The two terms I asked Scott about were obscure to me, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have found them. A simple question - what do these two terms mean?, and Scott was too mean-spirited to just tell me so I could talk to him about them. He hides behind Pali and then talks down to me and tells me to "show that you are willing to make an effort and do some research" as if I am a a child. If you like that kind of arrogant way of talking to a fellow list member in a discussion, then fine, enjoy it, and don't criticize Scott's condescending, disparaging attitude - just keep attacking anything you can make up about me. > To understand Abhidhamma, you have to study it and gradually understand it, not ask for "quotes", the power breakfast of the modern Buddhist. You know, when you make a comment like that you really sound foolish, Phil. I have been here almost every day for years asking questions, looking things up, reading long segments of commentary that are quoted by Nina or Sarah, and discussing Abhidhamma terms in fine detail on any number of occasions. What kind of nonsense are you making up? You act as though I showed up yesterday and instead of making any effort starting asking for a few terms to toss around. You seem to have adopted Scott's opinion about me, which he came back with after a long absence, unfamilar with anything I have posted for years now, and you just adopt it like he is your Dad or something and you have to agree with everything he says. > Since you've been here 10 years and haven't made a concentrated effort to learn about Abhudhamma, maybe time to stop pretending you are interested in anything other than the suttanta? Phil, it's better if you don't make comments that reflect your ignorance and a disparaging point of view towards others. For you to talk directly like that about what you think I know and don't know and what kind of effort I have made is just sad and unbecoming of you. Why don't you just stop talking to me, rather than make yourself some kind of foolish judge who can make pronouncements and declare verdicts about someone else's mindset or intentions? It's just pathetic. It happens that I am very interested in Abhidhamma and commentaries, and if you ever had been involved with me in those threads, you would know that. Probably the posts were too long for you to bother. Too bad you have now settled into a pattern of personalizing everything and apparently trying to drum me out of this group for being a "sutta lover," [the words of the Buddha, BTW.] Being a Dhamma cop is a tough assignment, isn't it Phil? Especially when nobody asked you to do it. > Then again, as I said once to you re. your assumptions about what Ken would say by pretending to be him, we shouldn't assume that people's ideas are fixed and will never change. But doubt is doubt, it arises! Well, try to talk about it in a more intelligent way, taking into account that you don't really know me that well and you apparently have not read my long exchanges with some of the knowlegeable people here making sincere efforts to understand conditionality and various cetasikas and other things about dhammas. > > Get thee to thy study chamber, and stop asking for quotes, this isn't a playground, I am going to forgive your condescending speech here, since I don't think you're aware enough to know what you're doing or saying. I can assure you that I will continue to have conversations on my own terms as long as I'm here, and won't take any rules or regs from you. And BTW, sutta quotes will continue to be relevant as long as we still pretend to be "Buddhists." If you have "gone beyond" the suttas, I feel sorry for you. Referencing *all* the scriptures and looking to them for understanding and verification is not "playground" behavior. It is the appropriate way to talk about these things. > we aren't collecting Pokemon cards or whatever it is kids collect these days. Get serious!( Talk about the pot calling the pot bl... er...African Am...er, North American. ) Well, that's nice that you end with something resembling a friendly joke. I don't know exactly what you're up to, Phil, but I would take a deep breath, even if you don't believe in "breathing," and take stock of how you're talking. There's no reason to divide group members into black and white categories. Just because I don't fit into the same box as you does not mean I don't have a valid reason for being here, and studying dhammas with others in the way that is useful for me. [Canadians - sheesh! :-) ] Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118907 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., Phil, > > R: "...I will be *very* interested for anything that directly states your view from any ancient Buddhist commentary." > > Scott: We'll see what happens next, Rob and Phil. Bear with the length. Within this very concise and dense section you can find pretty well all of the various dsg pets. > > Here, from the Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion). Commentary to Vibha"nga: This is great! Thanks for the contribution, Scott. I will go through it, possibly slowly, and be happy to discuss it with you. I wish I had all the commentaries and subcommentaries. I actually always enjoy them, and despite my "bad attitude" I would read them all if I had the opportunity. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118908 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob,and all Thanks for your comments. Scott has provided you with some quotes, let's see if you can stick to considering the realities involved rather than putting a spin on fhem based on your interpretation of suttas. (Everyone who reads suttas without guidance from Abhidhamma will have one, not singling you out as being especially wrong in that sense) Yes, you're right. I'm foolish. And I know it. Metta, Phil #118909 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:20 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? sarahprocter... Hi Scott, & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: >...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. .... S: All 'madmen', that is all putthujanas misunderstand conditionality and consture dhammas as 'self' with the power to cause things to happen. "..for the worldling is like a madman. he seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can. or else, the reason is that he has no regard for the ariyans, etc; or, as the Exalted One will say later on, 'because it has not been fully understood by him' ." (Mulapariyaaya Sutta). This is also true of many so-called Abhidhamma experts, isn't it? Even those who can recite the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka in Pali and who know all the precise technical descriptions of dhammas usually have lots of wrong ideas about people existing, a practice which should be undertaken and ideas about control. The Abhidhamma is not about terms and details and book knowledge, but about the direct understanding of the reality which appears now. Those who listened to the Buddha and became enlightened, had not heard the details of the various vipassanaa ~naanas, for example, but when they heard about seeing or visible object and the impermanence of these dhammas, they were directly understood. The test of the Abhidhamma is always the understanding now at this very moment. What kind of citta is it now when we speak/write/keep quiet? What is appearing now as we type or touch the screen? Do we mind whether others understand the Dhamma or whether they use terms incorrectly? What kind of citta minds, if so? Metta Sarah ===== #118910 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:28 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Scott (Phil & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." > > Scott: You should start. .... Sarah: Should? As Nina said, we all have different accumulations, different understandings. I'm sure that when I started to listen to K.Sujin I mis-used lots of terms and mis-understood many more, but she never told me I "should" do anything. Many Thai and non-Thai friends at the Foundation use Pali terms very inaccurately and often ask just the same questions over and over again and continue to cling to their meditation practises (Phil!), but there's never a suggestion that they shouldn't be there, should keep quiet or should expound on personal details if they'd prefer not to. Gradually, they either become more and more interested in understanding about present dhammas or not. Either way, it all just depends on conditions. No rules, no shoulds.... Metta Sarah ====== #118911 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:38 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: 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. .... S: :-)) How would the panel measure??? Seriously, I agree that any "getting personal" is useless. Instead of discussing and understanding more about dhammas as anatta, it seems to lead to more of a thinking about "me and my experiences". Perhaps the point is to show how very useless this is by exposing it. However, I think there is quite enough dwelling on "me and my experiences" in daily life without looking to increase it through dhamma study. Instead of being therapeutic in any way, it's just adding to the self-blocks in samsara. Usually in Bangkok, if people start to talk about their experiences (or are encouraged to do so), K.Sujin will just ask about now, what is real now. All those experiences have completely gone, no use dwelling on them at all - whether good or bad. I always find this so helpful as we cling so much already to our special experiences. It's like when people are interested in checking or measuring how much awareness there is in a day - just more Self-interest again instead of understanding and being aware of what appears now. Metta Sarah ==== #118912 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Phil, (Lukas & all) Just came across an old post with the following great extract from Perfections with a great quote from the texts inn a discussion you were both having: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >".... Patience is "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel > closing off the door to the plane of misery." > Many people are afraid of unhappy planes and they perform kusala so > that they will not be born there. However, if someone does not want > to be reborn in an unhappy plane, he should be patient and refrain > from akusala, because patience is "a panel closing off the door to > the plane of misery." .... S: No one wants to be miserable, to have endless unhappy experiences, and yet we forget about patience as "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door of the plane of misery." Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. Metta Sarah ===== #118913 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Vinnana vs vedana sarahprocter... Dear Alex, Just butting in and adding to Howard's comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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? .... S: Citta or vinnana experiences every object, one at a time. The object may be a nama, a rupa or a concept. Vedana, feeling "tastes" the object in a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral way. When it arises it is either pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling. Pls ask further if not clear. Metta Sarah ==== #118914 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > 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. > >R: 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. .... S: As Nina wrote to Alex, "there is no need to take a decision what to 'do', it happens already by conditions." In other words, as Scott and others have been stressing too, as soon as there's an idea of "making xyz part of the path" or "applying xyz", it's self again at work. Now, we're not sitting under a tree, we're not putting on a cloack, but there are dhammas arising and falling away regardless. There is only ever the present moment, the present dhamma appearing. If there are the right conditions, awareness, understanding and right effort will arise naturally. As soon as there's an idea of having them arise or wishing them to arise, it's the wrong path again. .... >R: 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? .... S: Just daily life for his listeners, showing how there are only dhammas, only realities, regardless of the conventional situation. Just the khandhas, the dhatus, the objects of satipatthana - namas and rupas, regardless. We make life and the path very, very difficult when we cling to an idea of "systematic practice/study/any kind of doing." ... >R: I'll look forward to any comments that come along. ... S: I appreciate your patience with us all. Metta Sarah ===== #118915 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... philofillet Hi Sarah > Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. Ph: According to accumulations. Some (e.g you!) people will have a natural inclination to respond more patiently. (I heard an interesting thing about inclinations, we thinj about having them, forget tgatinclinations refer to dhammas with characteristics to be studied.) Technically speaking, khanti isn't a dhamma, it's virya. I guess the accumulation of "patience" is the accumulation of kusala javanas accompanied by cetasikas responding wisely to a pkeasant or unpleasant object. "What conditions kusala?" A. Sujin was asked. "Wise attention" was the answer. Does that mean yoniso manasikara is particularly ourstanding when "patient" javanas arise in response to an obhect? After all, there is manasikara with every citta. No need for a response, just thinking out loud... Metta, Phil #118916 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:21 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob,and all > > Thanks for your comments. > > Scott has provided you with some quotes, let's see if you can stick to considering the realities involved rather than putting a spin on them based on your interpretation of suttas. ??? This is more insanity, friend Phil. Please show me one instance in which I have put a "spin" on commentary based on an "interpretation" of suttas. The problem with this constant critique is that it is an opinion without any facts to back it up. Give evidence or please don't say that. There is nothing in this analysis which is giving a widely divergent interpretation of a sutta, which is what I usually object to, and I think it is perfectly great so far as I can see. I really don't need those condescending warnings to "stick to...the realities." It's really pretty ridiculous to keep talking to me that way. > (Everyone who reads suttas without guidance from Abhidhamma will have one, not singling you out as being especially wrong in that sense) Well, you never know, Phil. You may have "guidance from Abhidhamma" and be completely delusional. It all depends on the state of your own mind, doesn't it? And I am singling you out, because I find your phony claims to superior knowledge annoying. > Yes, you're right. I'm foolish. And I know it. I don't know if you're foolish or not, Phil, but you've been taking a weird tack lately that you should drop. Scott can manage this kind of nasty superiority complex because of his hard-edged personality, but I think you're naturally a little more sensitive. Maybe you should just be yourself. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118917 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:29 pm Subject: Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Usually in Bangkok, if people start to talk about their experiences (or are encouraged to do so), K.Sujin will just ask about now, what is real now. All those experiences have completely gone, no use dwelling on them at all - whether good or bad. I always find this so helpful as we cling so much already to our special experiences. > > It's like when people are interested in checking or measuring how much awareness there is in a day - just more Self-interest again instead of understanding and being aware of what appears now. Thanks, Sarah, for the calm and clarity, and a very good point. I guess it's interesting to see everyone buzzing around like bees up to a point, just to see how reactive we all are, but I agree it is not too informative after a little while. Hard not to react once it starts going back and forth. Hopefully we'll settle down a little now to look at Scott's good quote from the commentary. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118918 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E > > ??? This is more insanity, friend Phil. Please show me one instance in which I have put a "spin" on commentary based on an "interpretation" of suttas. The problem with this constant critique is that it is an opinion without any facts to back it up. Give evidence or please don't say that. Ph: Oh come on Rob, we all read suttas looking for what we want out of them. We're greed driven, ignorance cloaked worldlings. who love to hang out on the internet. (This opinion has not been revised over the years even as orher views varied.) As I said, you are no more guilty of that than anyone else but since you like to write a lot your interpretations get spun out further and longer. It's only when there is examination of presently arisen dhammas tgat understanding reakly develops, all tge ideas we, all of us, but some more than others tgrow aroynd here may in some way support tgat studyung of characterics of dhammas, may, pissibly. Carry on, no more to say to you at this time. Metta, Phil > There is nothing in this analysis which is giving a widely divergent interpretation of a sutta, which is what I usually object to, and I think it is perfectly great so far as I can see. > > I really don't need those condescending warnings to "stick to...the realities." It's really pretty ridiculous to keep talking to me that way. > > > (Everyone who reads suttas without guidance from Abhidhamma will have one, not singling you out as being especially wrong in that sense) > > Well, you never know, Phil. You may have "guidance from Abhidhamma" and be completely delusional. It all depends on the state of your own mind, doesn't it? And I am singling you out, because I find your phony claims to superior knowledge annoying. > > > Yes, you're right. I'm foolish. And I know it. > > I don't know if you're foolish or not, Phil, but you've been taking a weird tack lately that you should drop. Scott can manage this kind of nasty superiority complex because of his hard-edged personality, but I think you're naturally a little more sensitive. Maybe you should just be yourself. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = > #118919 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again Rob and all People like Nina and a few others who have developed a thorough intellectual understanding of Dhamma aided by internet research and discussion are exceptions to what I wrote . Anybody who has been haunting internet fora for years without developing knowledge of the texts is just a pleasure seeker, me included, of course, at the front of the line. Metta, Phil #118920 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:29 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation ...? jonoabb Hi Phil (and RobE) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi All > ... The live discussions center on Abhidhamma, people are on the same page, the notion of being able to understand Dhamma just by reading suttas in translation witjout accepting Abhidhamma is quickly and consistently rejected so people can stay on the same page leading to more focussed duscussion. But that is not possible here, so discussion is always so divergent and unfocussed and is usually about trying to prove the other to be wrong, no matter how nicely, or indirectly, or aggressively. > =============== J: You may not have realised, but you've had a very fortunate introduction to the live discussions, especially in going to KK with such a keen group. The discussions in Bangkok haven't always been as harmonious and friendly as you experienced on that visit! I should add that during my stay in Thailand when I was attending the weekly Thai talks regularly over several years, there were many instances of listeners who took the floor and expounded an interpretation of the Dhamma that was at odds with that of the orthodox Theravadin texts, sometimes for weeks in a row, much to the annoyance and frustration of some of the regular listeners. But it was always AS's way to allow such persons to have their say, and to respond in a way that gave the person food for further thought. I do not recall the discussion ever becoming acrimonious or even over-heated. Jon #118921 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:51 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Sarah, R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." Me: "You should start." Sarah: "Should?" Scott: No disrespect intended but, yes 'should.' Here are some quotes from the Survey: "...This means that one should investigate realities, notice their characteristics in order to know them precisely as they are...) (p. 57). "...The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the direct understanding of realities through satipa.t.thaana...) (p. 92). "...We should know the jati (the nature) of the cittas that arise in processes and of those that do not arise in processes...) (p. 107. Scott: There are many, many such 'shoulds.' I don't misunderstand the use of the word. I exhorted Rob E. to work harder at seeking out the meaning of things intellectually. I wasn't suggesting anything that I don't do or haven't done. I accept that you prefer that such things go unsaid. S: "...I'm sure that when I started to listen to K.Sujin I mis-used lots of terms and mis-understood many more, but she never told me I 'should' do anything..." Scott: I've listened, more than once, to every recorded session. I hear you working very hard to clarify things. I can tell you've read and thought and tried to figure things out and that your questions come after much of your own 'effort.' And yes, even in these recordings, there is a lot of 'should' but, as I said, one needn't misunderstand the word. S: "...but there's never a suggestion that they shouldn't be there, should keep quiet or should expound on personal details if they'd prefer not to..." Scott: I don't mind if Rob E. or anyone is here. I'm here too. You don't think that I shouldn't be here, do you? Do 'personal details' equal the actual 'practice' that one claims to have? You may not think it a fair request, and I accede to your authority, but how else to examine the claims of practitioners except by looking at their 'practice?.' As Kh. Sujin said, 'We should know the jati (the nature) of the cittas that arise in processes and of those that do not arise in processes., and this should include an examination of 'practice.' I'm not so convinced that it is an unreasonable request. If it is an 'impolite' one, then fair enough - two very different things, though. We can a2D and I'll do as I'm told. I'm not being oppositional. Please discuss this with me, as I think it counts as Dhamma study. Scott. #118922 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:56 pm Subject: Re: Vinnana vs vedana truth_aerator Dear Sarah, > .... > S: Citta or vinnana experiences every object, one at a time. The object may be a nama, a rupa or a concept. Vedana, feeling "tastes" the object in a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral way. When it arises it is either pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling. > > Pls ask further if not clear. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > But what is the difference between vinnana feeling something and vedana feeling something? With best wishes, Alex #118923 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:22 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation ...? philofillet Hi Jon > J: You may not have realised, but you've had a very fortunate introduction to the live discussions, especially in going to KK with such a keen group. The discussions in Bangkok haven't always been as harmonious and friendly as you experienced on that visit! Ph: I know, I've listened to them all. But as far as I can tell, Abhidhamma is always the arbiter (?) and except for the periodic visitor such as Erik who has a strong bias towards suttas or meditation, not a lot of time is wasted on repetitive disputes such as your going over Alex's Defence of Jhana for the umpteenth time. But never mind, as I said before, DSG is all about me as far as I'm concerned, me wants what me wants. I'm going to focus on the Vism project Nina and Larry led, and hopefully keep my nose clean for awhile. Who knows it could possibly happen! Metta, Phil p.s Clearly my accumulatiins of lobha including for Dhamma are so great that strong dosa about people who see things differently will always be with me. I don't regret that, it can be understood. #118924 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Sarah, S: "...This is also true of many so-called Abhidhamma experts, isn't it? Even those who can recite the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka in Pali and who know all the precise technical descriptions of dhammas usually have lots of wrong ideas about people existing, a practice which should be undertaken and ideas about control. The Abhidhamma is not about terms and details and book knowledge, but about the direct understanding of the reality which appears now." Scott: Yes, you are 'preaching to the choir' in this case. I have no doubt about the above. I could have said it myself (but in my own words and then everyone would have got all tied up in knots, ha ha). S: "...Those who listened to the Buddha and became enlightened, had not heard the details of the various vipassanaa ~naanas, for example, but when they heard about seeing or visible object and the impermanence of these dhammas, they were directly understood. The test of the Abhidhamma is always the understanding now at this very moment. What kind of citta is it now when we speak/write/keep quiet? What is appearing now as we type or touch the screen? Do we mind whether others understand the Dhamma or whether they use terms incorrectly? What kind of citta minds, if so?" Scott: I'm still in the choir (la la la). If I am commenting on the mundane aspects of discussion on a list, and expressing the opinions I have about scholarship and doing a little work, this is not at all in opposition to what you note above. Surely you can't misunderstand me to be actually suggesting that knowing definitions of terms is at all the same as 'understanding now?' I have not misunderstood this in any way. Do you mind if terms are used incorrectly? I don't know. Do you work to correct misunderstandings on the list? Definitely. So I think you do mind. Do you expect the clarifications you make to have an effect on people? I don't know. Maybe? I recall being told once, in a short and terse statement, that there was a difference between 'concept and reality.' Faster than thought it made total sense. A lot of hard work and book study and questioning later and here I am - the most annoying person on the list. Ha ha. Scott. #118925 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:54 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > > > ??? This is more insanity, friend Phil. Please show me one instance in which I have put a "spin" on commentary based on an "interpretation" of suttas. The problem with this constant critique is that it is an opinion without any facts to back it up. Give evidence or please don't say that. > > Ph: Oh come on Rob, we all read suttas looking for what we want out of them. We're greed driven, ignorance cloaked worldlings. who love to hang out on the internet. (This opinion has not been revised over the years even as other views varied.) As I said, you are no more guilty of that than anyone else but since you like to write a lot your interpretations get spun out further and longer. I don't see that as any special indication one way or the other as to whether any view is correct or not on any particular issue. So what's the use of saying "we're all full of it, [but possibly especially you, Rob]?" If it's an excuse not to have any evidence for what you think about things, that's pretty thin. You still need to have a reason to either agree or oppose, not just 'cause you feel like it.' > It's only when there is examination of presently arisen dhammas that understanding really develops, all the ideas we, all of us, but some more than others throw around here may in some way support that studying of characterics of dhammas, may, possibly. Some more than others? Matter of opinion I guess. I don't see myself or others "throwing around opinions," but trying to really trying to get at the truth. We may be a long way off, but I don't see it as dismissively as you do. If you don't like my long-winded style, which is only part of my way of trying to look into things, that's fine. You don't seem to have a problem deciding what you do or don't want to read or deal with, so I'm not too worried about it. As for 'presently arising dhammas,' good luck with that! I'll let you know when I see one. > Carry on, no more to say to you at this time. Well thanks, Dude - carry on I will, until the next time you are irritated enough to speak to me. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118926 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:59 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi again Rob and all > > People like Nina and a few others who have developed a thorough intellectual understanding of Dhamma aided by internet research and discussion are exceptions to what I wrote . Anybody who has been haunting internet fora for years without developing knowledge of the texts is just a pleasure seeker, me included, of course, at the front of the line. You can draw that conclusion, but as usual, I don't see any evidence. It's just an opinion. It's also the usual odd conclusion that you know or can evaluate what sort of knowledge "of the texts" one person or another is developing. Do you -- assuming you are not claiming to be a Buddha -- think you know how each person is supposed to develop or what will lead to them developing the proper accumulations? As a student of Abhidhamma and "the texts" you should know that it is impossible to know this, so I really really think you should stop judging other people's participation -- including perhaps your own -- and not try to evaluate who is having the right approach, who is sincere and who is not, who is a "pleasure-seeker" and who is an aspiring Abhidhammika. If you want to talk about dhammas, hey I have an idea - try talking about them, and stop gossiping. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #118927 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:02 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation ...? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Phil (and RobE) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi All > > ... > The live discussions center on Abhidhamma, people are on the same page, the notion of being able to understand Dhamma just by reading suttas in translation witjout accepting Abhidhamma is quickly and consistently rejected so people can stay on the same page leading to more focussed duscussion. But that is not possible here, so discussion is always so divergent and unfocussed and is usually about trying to prove the other to be wrong, no matter how nicely, or indirectly, or aggressively. > > =============== > > J: You may not have realised, but you've had a very fortunate introduction to the live discussions, especially in going to KK with such a keen group. The discussions in Bangkok haven't always been as harmonious and friendly as you experienced on that visit! > > I should add that during my stay in Thailand when I was attending the weekly Thai talks regularly over several years, there were many instances of listeners who took the floor and expounded an interpretation of the Dhamma that was at odds with that of the orthodox Theravadin texts, sometimes for weeks in a row, much to the annoyance and frustration of some of the regular listeners. But it was always AS's way to allow such persons to have their say, and to respond in a way that gave the person food for further thought. I do not recall the discussion ever becoming acrimonious or even over-heated. Thanks for sharing that - sounds like another instance of K. Sujin's excellent teaching style, and a good model for our own discussions. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #118928 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:06 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > I recall being told once, in a short and terse statement, that there was a difference between 'concept and reality.' Faster than thought it made total sense. Well that in itself is the essence of the whole thing, isn't it? If we could agree on what's a concept and what's a reality, we'd be all set! But at least we all agree that there's a difference between the two! > A lot of hard work and book study and questioning later and here I am - the most annoying person on the list. Ha ha. Don't worry, Scott, you're in good company. It takes a very special effort to try for "most annoying person." I don't think you've won it yet! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118929 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Training the mind ( was Re: Lost in the nimitta nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 19-okt-2011, om 8:38 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Usually in Bangkok, if people start to talk about their experiences > (or are encouraged to do so), K.Sujin will just ask about now, what > is real now. All those experiences have completely gone, no use > dwelling on them at all - whether good or bad. I always find this > so helpful as we cling so much already to our special experiences. ------- N: I remember. Whenever we speak to her about our problems, she will point to this moment. Some people are disappointed that she does not answer straight, but in the end some may come to the conclusion that this is the most effective way. As to Abhidhamma study being theoretical, I think we told you in India that we visited a Thai temple where two small boys started to recite by heart the Dhammasagani. It was very sweet the way they did this. When we asked them about the application in life the teacher said: not yet, this is in a higher class. Also in Birma it is a tradition to start theory for years and later on practice. It is good to know that people have different backgrounds. Nina. #118930 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:17 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: "...This is also true of many so-called Abhidhamma experts, isn't >it? Even those who can recite the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka in Pali >and >who know all the precise technical descriptions of dhammas >usually >have lots of wrong ideas about people existing, a practice >which >should be undertaken and ideas about control. >================================================================ So the Buddha was incompetent teacher who couldn't teach "don't practice or you'll develop Self views" and kept saying exactly opposite of what He was supposed to mean... Venerable Buddhaghosa was also wrong since he talked about practice... Numerous other people from Buddha's time till 21st century couldn't figure it out. Even Abhidhamma experts such as Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw do talk about practice. He was a questioner and final editor at the Sixth Buddhist Council on May 17, 1954. Pa Auk Sayadaw is another Abhidhamma master who does teaches Anapanasati. http://www.paauk.org/files/sayadawbio.html So all of them are wrong about intentional practice, and you are right? If the suttas and/or commentaries such as VsM were clear on "live daily life, do not practice, do not strive just study" then I would have no problem. But when there are suttas after sutta talking about "strive!" etc, it is hard to twist them to mean the exact opposite of what they say. Please understand my concern. With best wishes, Alex #118931 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 19-okt-2011, om 8:46 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: No one wants to be miserable, to have endless unhappy > experiences, and yet we forget about patience as "a shore bounding > the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door of the > plane of misery." > > Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now > through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. ------ N: This morning in hospital I discussed with Lodewijk patience, patience in the development of understanding. We cannot understand anattaa immediately! This time it was for the heart specialist. He had to go on a bicycle for a test. We were there for hours! In hospital reading Co and tiika to Sangitisutta, and it was very good. In the sutta we read about higher Dhamma, Abhidhamma, this is not meant in general, as is sometimes suggested. co: it means the seven books of the Abhidhamma. And when we read: Dhamma Vinaya, Dhamma stands for sutta and Abhidhamma, it is explicitly stated. I come back to this when Connie and I will post this after a week or so. (the Tens, first sutta). Nina. #118932 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... nilovg Dear Phil, Op 19-okt-2011, om 9:17 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > "What conditions kusala?" A. Sujin was asked. "Wise attention" was > the answer. Does that mean yoniso manasikara is particularly > ourstanding when "patient" javanas arise in response to an obhect? > After all, there is manasikara with every citta. ------ N: Right, but here it is yoniso manasikaara, right attention. The Co states: a proximate cause for every kusala citta. Thus also when there is patience, patience in speech, in replies, in reactions to others. Being openminded, appreciation of people's sincere interest in Dhamma, even when we think that they have ideas different from ours. ------ Nina. #118933 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:30 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >PH to RobE:Scott has provided you with some quotes, let's see if you >can stick to considering the realities involved rather than putting a >spin on fhem based on your interpretation of suttas. >==================================== Please understand my concern. Whenever the suttas talk about effort, "crushing mind with mind", "effort as ardently as one would put out head on fire", "two strong people subduing a man" , "trying to the point the body is emaciated" etc I don't see how the Buddha could be even more clear and vivid in getting the point of putting in strong energy. This has also been interpretation of world class Abhidhamma Experts, so the argument of me following the suttas and rejecting Abhidhamma is wrong. With best wishes, Alex #118934 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation ...? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 19-okt-2011, om 15:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I'm going to focus on the Vism project Nina and Larry led ------ N: Please do so, and a lovely occasion to revisit it if you have questions. It helps so much to understand what khandhas are, all naamas and ruupa. and you know, when I just started Sarah suggested to always keep in mind the understanding of this moment. That is why I always try to add a remark about the present moment and to develop understanding now. Sarah reminded me: otherwise all this study is useless. ----- Nina. #118935 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Computer on it's death bed upasaka_howard Hi, all - It's very likely that my computer is beyond resuscitation, so don't be surprised if nothing is heard from me for a while. That will be the only reason. All the best, Howard #118936 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:53 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...If we could agree on what's a concept and what's a reality, we'd be all set..." Scott: That is why, massive controversy aside, I still refer you to the texts where the difference is clarified systematically and unambiguously. Call me dogmatic (again), woof woof. These definitions represent the last and closest statements to the source. Modern interpreters are legion, differ in opinion, and are bankrupt of credibility. Including me and you. I care the least for any of my own opinions about the Dhamma, and second least for anyone else's. Opinions are a dime a dozen. The Dhamma is the teacher. Scott. P.S. Imagine me making this sound: nnngyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now that's annoying. #118937 From: "connie" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:03 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? nichiconn Rob, Scott, > > P.S. Imagine me making this sound: nnngyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now that's annoying. > This N-word reminded me of "~naa.na" and my recent discovery: if you can't figure out/don't want to bother with Unicode/diacritics, you can enter English words in http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ - not to be insulting, but make sure the box for searching entries only is not checked. For "~naa.na", try "conviction". p.c. (pedantic connie) #118938 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:02 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Computer on it's death bed dhammasaro Good friend Howard, et al I once was a computer/radar guru... that's what led me, indirectly, to Theravadan Buddhism... However, since retiring, I am very much behind the "power curve," [bummer] If it is convenient; perhaps, we can discuss off line... I, currently, am working on a friend's laptop... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; KalamaDhamma@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <.....> It's very likely that my computer is beyond resuscitation, so don't be surprised if nothing is heard from me for a while. That will be the only reason. <.....> #118939 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:11 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? dhammasaro Good friend Scott, et al You wrote in part: Opinions are a dime a dozen. The Dhamma is the teacher. I fully agree... peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: scduncan@... <.....> R: "...If we could agree on what's a concept and what's a reality, we'd be all set..." Scott: That is why, massive controversy aside, I still refer you to the texts where the difference is clarified systematically and unambiguously. Call me dogmatic (again), woof woof. These definitions represent the last and closest statements to the source. Modern interpreters are legion, differ in opinion, and are bankrupt of credibility. Including me and you. I care the least for any of my own opinions about the Dhamma, and second least for anyone else's. Opinions are a dime a dozen. The Dhamma is the teacher. Scott. P.S. Imagine me making this sound: nnngyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now that's annoying. <....> #118940 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:51 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 connie, c: "...you can enter English words in http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/..." Scott: Cool! c: "p.c. (pedantic connie)" Scott: Good one. I laughed out loud. Scott. #118941 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:47 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...If we could agree on what's a concept and what's a reality, we'd be all set..." > > Scott: That is why, massive controversy aside, I still refer you to the texts where the difference is clarified systematically and unambiguously. Call me dogmatic (again), woof woof. > > These definitions represent the last and closest statements to the source. Modern interpreters are legion, differ in opinion, and are bankrupt of credibility. Including me and you. I care the least for any of my own opinions about the Dhamma, and second least for anyone else's. Opinions are a dime a dozen. The Dhamma is the teacher. Dude - feel free to refer me to the texts. I don't know if I can make this any clearer, but *I like reading Abhidhamma and commentary.* My complaints are mostly about conclusions drawn from them without a logical thread, but I get a lot out of the commentaries and read them whenever they are presented, as I don't have them myself. > P.S. Imagine me making this sound: nnngyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now that's annoying. Not annoying enough. Strive harder. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118942 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:50 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > Rob, Scott, > > > > P.S. Imagine me making this sound: nnngyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now that's annoying. > > > > This N-word reminded me of "~naa.na" and my recent discovery: if you can't figure out/don't want to bother with Unicode/diacritics, you can enter English words in http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ - not to be insulting, but make sure the box for searching entries only is not checked. For "~naa.na", try "conviction". > > p.c. (pedantic connie) At least you don't *sound* pedantic. Thanks for good info! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #118943 From: "upasaka@..." Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:16 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Computer on it's death bed upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - A very kind offer. However, my computer is about 6 yrs old & moribund. I bought a new one today that I'll set up over the weekend. With metta, Howard Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless -----Original message----- From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, kalamadhamma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 16:30:35 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [dsg] Computer on it's death bed Good friend Howard, et al I once was a computer/radar guru... that's what led me, indirectly, to Theravadan Buddhism... However, since retiring, I am very much behind the "power curve," [bummer] If it is convenient; perhaps, we can discuss off line... I, currently, am working on a friend's laptop... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; KalamaDhamma@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <.....> It's very likely that my computer is beyond resuscitation, so don't be surprised if nothing is heard from me for a while. That will be the only reason. <.....> ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #118945 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 am Subject: Truth Triumphs! bhikkhu5 Friends: Honest Truth is the 7th Mental Perfection: Honesty is Trust Honesty is Truthful Honesty is Guarantee Honesty is Confidence Honesty is Consistence Honesty is Convincing Honesty is Certainty Honesty is Credibility Honesty is Reliability Honesty is Authenticity Honesty is Integrity Honesty is Accuracy Honesty is Commitment Honesty is Sincerity Honesty is Security Honesty is Reality Honesty is a Must! Honesty characteristically never deceives, its function is to verify what is actual and factual. Honesty's manifestation is sheer excellence... Sincere and exact truthfulness is the proximate cause of honesty! All evil states and crimes converge upon transgression of Truth... Devotion to Truth is the only reliable foundation of all Nobility! Like The Buddha demand of your own mind: You have to give me an honest answer, understand! I won't accept anything phony. And once you've answered, you have to stick to that very answer and not slide or glide around. Don't be a traitor to yourself! Be sober & straight! Therefore: Accept now this 4th training rule of avoiding all false speech! If one is not true to the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha's teachings will not be true to oneself, either! That Dhamma, which is used as a costume, surface, uniform or alibi, does not bear fruit, as its intention is not true! True Honesty, however, makes you quite worthy of respect! If one is painstakingly honest towards oneself, one thereby also becomes meticulously honest towards others. If one on the contrary deceives oneself, believing own lies, one automatically also deceives others, betraying them. Honesty, however, always makes you quite worthy of respect... Make an island of yourself, be your own light and illumination, make yourself your only safe haven; there is no other protection. Make Truth your only island, make Truth your sole refuge; Make Truth your only lamp; there is no other luminosity. Digha Nikya, 16 The straight person, self-controlled, keeping precepts, open and honest, is both worthy and fit for the yellow robe. The hiding person, the imposter, the immoral, those keeping secrets, not honest, are neither worthy, nor fit for the yellow robe. Dhammapada 9+10 Overcome the furious by friendship. Overcome the evil one by goodness. Overcome the miser by generosity; Overcome the liar by truth. Dhammapada 223 The one who destroys life; The one who speaks false; The one who takes what is not given; The one who mates with another's partner; The one who is addicted to drugs or alcohol; Such one - even in this world - digs up his own root! Dhammapada 246-47 They who falsely declare: "That happened" about what did not happen, or: "I did not do that" about what they actually did, they earn themselves a ticket to grilling in Hell. Dhammapada 306 When the Blessed One heard about the kings spies, who for money stole information from others, he explained: One should not take just any job. One should not be anothers man. One should not depend on any other. One should not sell the truth for money Udana VI - 2 The Bodhisatta was once caught by a man-eater, which set him free on the condition that he returned the next day. He kept his word and did so... Much later remembered: Protecting this way of truth, having given up my life and kingdom, I thereby set free 100 captured nobles, as the man-eater lost his nerve. In honesty I thereby reached the ultimate perfection! Mahasutasoma-Jataka no. 537 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #118946 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:42 am Subject: FW: [SariputtaDhamma] Ajahn Brahm: What Do You Want? dhammasaro Good friends all, I trust this sincere message will be approved soon... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: sariputtadhamma@yahoogroups.com From: dhammasaro@... <....> Good friends all, What do I want? No thing for me... dis ole bag of bones iz ad eaze... time slowly moves on... For you? I want... Peace in your existence in this life... Yes, it is very difficult is it not??? My good friends all; please, do not give up... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95XfzIJ-ov0&feature=related #118947 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... philofillet Hi Nina > N: Right, but here it is yoniso manasikaara, right attention. The Co > states: a proximate cause for every kusala citta. Thus also when > there is patience, patience in speech, in replies, in reactions to > others. Being openminded, appreciation of people's sincere interest > in Dhamma, even when we think that they have ideas different from ours. Well, patience (kusala virya, yoniso manasikaara and other kusala factors) develops gradually. Remorse over impatience, trying to be a more patient person, vowing to be more open-minded and considerate of others' views, that won't help in the long run or make any read difference in the short run either. You and others' have stronger accumulations of patience, that's just the way it is, can't be changed. But I do have confidence that panna and other kusala factors develop if we keep listening, reading, reflecting, discussing and - most importantly - studying the characteristics of presently arisen dhammas. I think the last and most important point can get lost in the shuffle sometimes, at least for me. Much more interesting to read about and discuss characteristics of dhammas than to be content with the very gradual development of understanding seeing and visible object, etc. Thanks Nina and for your other post. Yes, I will be studying Vism for awhile, first in the book (which I always read in bits and pieces, but never thoroughly) and then by asking questions or looking for the related posts in your and Larry's project. Already questions arise about the moneychanger simile, but there is probably not much to be said about that, I've heard it discussed, other people also find it hard to understand how vinnana, sanna and panna are described in that simile. Metta, Phil #118948 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:21 pm Subject: Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands kenhowardau Hi Chuck, The message I sent you hasn't turned up, but I won't bother to re-post it. I'd rather join the discussion you are starting. The story about the old couple was a nice one, but it had nothing to with the Dhamma. The same applied to the Ven Brahm sermon that you linked us to. I persevered with the latter for fifteen of its 55 minutes, but found no Dhamma content whatsoever. I have no criticism about the first one because the old people weren't claiming to be Dhamma teachers. The second one, however, leaves me at a loss for words. (Well, almost!) That exact same sermon could have been given at any of the Anglican Churches I attended as a boy. It was just one boring platitude after another droning on and on with the congregation sitting patiently in their pews (or on their cushions) waiting for it to be over. Is that how you saw it? Ken H #118949 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:28 pm Subject: Re: Computer on it's death bed epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > It's very likely that my computer is beyond resuscitation, so > don't be surprised if nothing is heard from me for a while. That will > be the only reason. Get a new one soon, Howard. I don't like having you off list. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #118950 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:36 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Connie, Scott and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > connie, > > c: "...you can enter English words in http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/..." > > Scott: Cool! > > c: "p.c. (pedantic connie)" > > Scott: Good one. I laughed out loud. Just a technical thing - the link doesn't work because yahoo added the "..." at the end of the link address. If you cut and paste the link into your browser address line and cut off the "..." it will take you to the Pali dictionary. Actually I will try correcting it here, and let's see if it comes through in the message as a correct link: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ Should work. Thanks for the resource, Chris! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118951 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:14 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Computer on it's death bed dhammasaro Good friend Howard, et al, Great news.... What did you acquire? If you have no plans for your ole wun... I collect old computers for possible antique resale ---- for my grandson... [grins] If you are interested, I will buy from you - please clean your hard disk or remove... Please advise... peace... Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <...> A very kind offer. However, my computer is about 6 yrs old & moribund. I bought a new one today that I'll set up over the weekend. <...> #118952 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:39 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Ken, Sincere warm thanks for trying to view both. First, please forgive me for posting a non-Buddhist thought about the elderly couple, in your opinion. Second, I fully respect your opinion in respect to Anglican Church Minister sermons. Unfortunately, I never attended one... [bummer] Hence, I can not comment... [double bummer] ................................................................................\ ................................ Third, good friend Ken H, would you be so kind to explain: a. the content of the Dhamma Talk by Ajahn Brahm which you agree; b. the content of the Dhamma Talk by Ajahn Brahm which you do not agree. Sincere warm thanks... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <...> #118953 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:48 pm Subject: Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, I sent you a reply over an hour ago... I supposed it was not approved... I will resend... Chuck Post script: I doubt this will pass the the muster... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Chuck, > > The message I sent you hasn't turned up, but I won't bother to re-post it. I'd rather join the discussion you are starting. > > The story about the old couple was a nice one, but it had nothing to with the Dhamma. The same applied to the Ven Brahm sermon that you linked us to. I persevered with the latter for fifteen of its 55 minutes, but found no Dhamma content whatsoever. <...> #118954 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk kenhowardau Hi Chuck, ----- > C: Sincere warm thanks for trying to view both. > First, please forgive me for posting a non-Buddhist thought about the elderly couple, in your opinion. ----- KH: No problem, and nothing to forgive. But I would like to know which Buddhist message, if any, you saw in it. ------------------- > C: Second, I fully respect your opinion in respect to Anglican Church Minister sermons. Unfortunately, I never attended one... [bummer] ------------------- KH: But you know what I was talking about, don't you? It was just a vague rambling talk interspersed with some very conventional lessons. It was the sort of talk anyone could have given. --------------------------- > C: Hence, I can not comment... [double bummer] ................................................................................\ \ ................................ --------------------------- KH: Maybe you can't comment specifically on the Anglican aspect, but I'm not interested in that. I am more interested in why you, or anybody, would see the story about the mouse-nibbled robe as being Dhamma related. ----------------------------------- > C: Third, good friend Ken H, would you be so kind to explain: a. the content of the Dhamma Talk by Ajahn Brahm which you agree; ----------------------------------- KH: I only listened for fifteen minutes. Normally that would be more than enough to indicate what the remaining 40 minutes was going to be like. There was nothing in it that related to the teaching of the Buddha (e.g., there was nothing about dukkha, the cause of dukkha, its cessation, or the path). ----------------- > C: b. the content of the Dhamma Talk by Ajahn Brahm which you do not agree. ----------------- KH: I do not agree that the Dhamma is the same as any other teaching. The talk we are discussing could have been heard in any church or at any self-help convention etc (if you take out the word "Buddha" and insert "Jesus" or similar word). Apart from that, I can't say much. I haven't listened to many sermons from modern-day monks so I didn't know what to expect. I certainly didn't expect to hear a Theravadin monk making jokes. I know the Dalai Lama likes to joke and has an almost incessant giggle, but that is not what I would have expected from the abbot of a Theravadin Forest Monastery. Maybe I expect too much. :-) Ken H #118955 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:55 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al Sincere warm thanks for your reply. First, please understand, I am not a teacher, okay? So, please do not be disappointed if I am defective in my thinking... [bummers] Second, let us discuss this part of your response: ----------------- > C: b. the content of the Dhamma Talk by Ajahn Brahm which you do not agree. ----------------- KH: I do not agree that the Dhamma is the same as any other teaching. The talk we are discussing could have been heard in any church or at any self-help convention etc (if you take out the word "Buddha" and insert "Jesus" or similar word). Apart from that, I can't say much. I haven't listened to many sermons from modern-day monks so I didn't know what to expect. I certainly didn't expect to hear a Theravadin monk making jokes. I know the Dalai Lama likes to joke and has an almost incessant giggle, but that is not what I would have expected from the abbot of a Theravadin Forest Monastery. Maybe I expect too much. :-) Ken H .................................................................... 1. Why can not everyday dhamma (Dhamma, if preferred) be the same as any other teaching. ??? dhamma is dhamma... if parts of the 8 & 4 are taught; why condemn the partial teachings? 2. The talk we are discussing could have been heard in any church or at any self-help convention etc (if you take out the word "Buddha" and insert "Jesus" or similar word). So??? Again, dhamma is dhamma... if parts of the 8 & 4 are taught; why condemn the partial teachings? 3. I certainly didn't expect to hear a Theravadin monk making jokes. I know the Dalai Lama likes to joke and has an almost incessant giggle, but that is not what I would have expected from the abbot of a Theravadin Forest Monastery. May I gently suggest you read/listen to the many translations of the Thai Theravadin Forest Monastery meditation masters - Ajahn Cha (Chah) and other similar Thai Meditation Masters? They joked!!! Just last Sunday, my good friend, the number two monk at Wat Mongkoltepmunee made several jokes in his sermon (Dhamma Talk). FWIW, Buddhism is a happy, positive way of life, do you not agree? Again, my friend, warm thanks... peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck Post script: Please, next time listen to the complete Dhamma Talk... <...> #118956 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:13 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Sarah, Scott and all > R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." > > Me: "You should start." > > Sarah: "Should?" > > Scott: No disrespect intended but, yes 'should.' Ph: I just heard A Sujin talking about how every word should be understood carefully "deeply." I continue to appreciate Scott's insistence on this point. Otherwise people will just talk circles around each other forever and ever. Better to be pedantic than facile, understanding won't develop without correct intellectual understanding, that requires an insistence on details. Perhaps not with a newcomer to Dhamma, or someone dealing with a hardship. But in the kind of discussion Rob and Scott have been in, no place for poetry. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #118957 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Hope you get through the message I just sent to Scott and all! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: I just heard A Sujin talking about how every word should be understood carefully "deeply." .... S: As discussed, agreed. We can know for ourselves how deeply we consider the words when understanding arises and directly knows the characteristics. Considering deeply doesn't mean just thinking and thinking and checking all the Pali dictionaries. It means really beginning to understand the dhammas now in daily life. Take the long discussions I've had with Ken O and others on attanu-ditthi and sakkaya ditthi. One won't find the answers in the book, but gradually there can be direct understanding of what is meant by atta-ditthi when the visible object is taken for cookies and what is meant by sakkaya-ditthi when the rupas are taken for one's arm. Anyway, Iike Nina, I wouldn't doubt the sincerity or careful considering that others have here. I know that friends like Rob E , Alex and Howard consider very deeply, even if their way and conclusions are not always ours. Just as, I never doubted your sincerity and careful consideration a year ago when you were being pretty hostile and challenging everything we said and urging more striving:-))) Does it bother us when others come to different conclusions or write what we consider to be prompted by wrong view? If so why? What's the reality at such times? Understanding these dhammas is what is important. The problem is never the other person or the other's wrong view - it alwasys comes back to the citta now!! Metta Sarah p.s yes, you did go a tad too far in your description of discussions at the foundation. I smiled! Lots and lots of meditation talk, wrong views a plenty, holding forth by bhikkhus and others with no interest in the abhidhama. Sometimes K.Sujin hardly says anything, but just closes her eyes or goes out and leaves it to others to argue as they wish. Just the session before you arrived last time, a friend who has listened to KS on and off since the 70s was still talking about the white lights in her meditation practice and holding forth for much of the session!! The edited recordings are about a third of the original length. As Jon said, you were very privileged in KK. ===== #118958 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > Hope you get through the message I just sent to Scott and all! > Ph: Oops. Are we supposed to read them to the end? You got me. Sorry! Will go back...maybe (blush) Metta, Phil #118960 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:15 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Oops. Are we supposed to read them to the end? > > You got me. Sorry! Will go back...maybe (blush) .... S: :-)) I know, I know..... no intention to make you blush.... Anyway, it's all gone..... all those stories about people and things, even stories about Dhamma...all gone. How about now? That's all that matters! Metta Sarah ===== #118961 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Striver? Re this! ( wasRe: "ritual" [reply to Erik] sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Ph: I would have edited out the reference to rituals, I wanted Strivers! to reflect that wrong effort includes many of their favourite Striving! things. As for rituals, samattha for monks, not a ritual, samattha for people who are impeded in the ways taught in Vism but lack understanding to know it, well you tell me. At least you are wise enough not to try because of your heath, that shows some understanding. .... S: Never mind whether it's a monk or a lay person. If there is a "trying to do" without understanding now of kusala and akusala dhammas, it's a ritual. Whenever anything is done, by anyone, with the idea that such doing will lead to samatha, it's a ritual. Metta Sarah ===== #118962 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:22 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > The only post from Jon that I can find in this thread is: > Khandas and Samsara > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118744 > So .. if you or anyone (Jon or Sarah?) has a link, I would be grateful to be read the sutta quotes. .... S: Scott referred to comments on suttas which Jon had made in threads with Rob E, right? I remember they had long discussions on the Satipatthana Sutta, probably on the Anapanna Sutta, on suttas about striving. I don't have the links, but Rob E is likely to remember better, perhaps. Metta Sarah ===== #118963 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:35 pm Subject: Re: Sanna and memory sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I find it difficult to understand how sanna functions. .... S: Just briefly, as you know, sanna has two functions: remembering and marking. It arises with every single citta, remembering and marking the object of citta. .... >The folliwing is from a book called Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G Mendis. Does this description of the functioning iof sanna sound correct to you? Thanks for pointing out any suspect points: > > "Memory occurs not through a single factor but through a complex process in which perception plays the most important role. .... S: A little problematic if we translate back into Pali, but.... ... >When the mind first cognizes an object through the senses, perception "picks out" the object's distinctive mark. When the same object is met with on a subsequent occasion, perception again notices that its distinctive mark is identical with the previous one. It "grasps" the identity of the distinctive marks. This "grasping" is a complex series of thought processes, one of which connects the present object with the previous one and another attaches to the present object the previous one's name. Memory will be good if this "grasping" functions well, and "grasping" will function well if the initial "picking out" of the object's distinctive marks was clear, not obscured by irrelevant thoughts. Clear perception comes through attention. .... S: Yes, sanna marks the "distinctive mark" of the object and it is recognised again and again. I wouldn't use "grasping" here, as the marking occurs regardless of the kind of citta is accompanies. As for the comments about "good memory" if the "grasping functions well" and so on, this doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless of the conventional good or bad memory, sanna is marking the objects regardless. Just conditions to think differently according to accumulations. Even in the case of someone who seems to have no memory, sanna is marking and remembering at each instant. I think there's a tendency amongst writers to mix modern psychology with abhidhamma. I understand that. "Clear perception"? What is that? When there is wise attention, the sanna is kusala. Is that what is meant? Now, we may be forgetful of ordinary things, but if there is right understanding of dhammas, sanna marks the object and remembers in a kusala way. ... >As the Buddha says: "In what is > seen there must be just the seen, in what is heard there must be just the heard, in what is sensed there must be just the sensed, in what is thought there must be just the thought."" > > Ph: How can sanna "pick out a distinctive mark of an object" if objects don't exist in reality? Does the author mean visible object when he says 'an object'? ... S: What is meant is that sanna marks the particular characteristic of an object, such as visible object. It marks and remembers not only that it's seen, but just how this visible object is, never to be forgotten. This is how it knows that this is what we call a computer or a sea-scape. Even concepts - sanna marks and remembers each time a concept is thought about. For example, it's because of sanna that we remember that this is called a computer and so on. Sanna marking now as we write.... Metta Sarah ====== #118964 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Lost thread sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: I still haven't written it. It was going to be to someone I know only through a (non-Buddhist) internet forum. He is a very popular man both on the forum and in the real world and is surrounded by family and friends. > > One thing that occurs to me, however, is that everyone is saying "please get well . . . get well soon . . . get back to being your old self again." And so, with the best of intentions, they are saying his current condition is not acceptable to them. It's as if a sick person is of no value. ... S: I don't think they're saying that.... I think they're just giving him some encouragement or showing their care, aren't they? Like when we say, as we just did to someone we bumped into with a broken ankle, "I hope you get well soon", it's just wishing a good recovery for them. I wouldn't read too much into it! ... > > I'd like to remind him that the Dhamma is always the same and he can be perfectly content knowing `in the seen there is only the seen' and that sort of thing. > > But the chances are he is a Dalai Lama kind of Buddhist and wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about! :-) I'll wait for a while. ... S: Even a "Dalai Lama kind of Buddhist" would probably appreciate such comments, but I agree that one has to consider the timing. ... > > Speaking of lost threads, there's another one where you have been explaining about sakkaya ditthi, and I have been meaning to ask a question. Is it possible that belief in the existence of other sentient beings is just ordinary atta-ditthi, and only belief in oneself as a sentient being is sakkaya-ditthi? .... S: I think it's personality belief, any personality. So if one takes the visible object for a person, for a being, it would still be sakkaya ditthi as I understand. it's taken for someone living. (Don't ask me about when someone takes a plant for a living being!!) If there's awareness of visible object or hardness as dhammas, no people or things, it doesn't matter what the wrong views are called because they don't arise anyway. Good question - did you have any thoughts of your own? Metta Sarah ===== #118965 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Buddha an incapable teacher who couldn't be clear? sarahprocter... Dear Chuck & Alex, Good comment, Chuck. I was about to make the same one when I saw your message. Also, the ancient Pali commentaries are usually included with the Tipitaka as well. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Good friend Alex, et al > > Please note the "canon" applies to the Tipitaka and more; not, just the Sutta-Pitaka. See: > Tipitaka > > > The Pali Canon > Web site: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/ ... Metta Sarah ==== #118966 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk kenhowardau Hi Chuck: ------- > C: 1. Why can not everyday dhamma (Dhamma, if preferred) be the same as any other teaching. ??? dhamma is dhamma... if parts of the 8 & 4 are taught; why condemn the partial teachings? ------- KH: You are talking to a hardliner who believes the Buddha taught satipathana and *only* satipatthana. So I don't include conventional morality among his teachings. When Ven Brahm spoke about mending a mouse-bitten robe I doubt he was describing the characteristics of conditioned dhammas. I suspect he was talking about conventional behaviours and dispositions (e.g., fewness of wants). But I could be wrong, of course. ----------------- > C: 2. >> KH: The talk we are discussing could have been heard in any church or at any self-help convention etc (if you take out the word "Buddha" and insert "Jesus" or similar word).>> > C: So??? Again, dhamma is dhamma... if parts of the 8 & 4 are taught; why condemn the partial teachings? ----------------- KH: I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting other teachers - Jesus, for example - taught parts of the Dhamma? --------------------------- <. . .> > C: May I gently suggest you read/listen to the many translations of the Thai Theravadin Forest Monastery meditation masters - Ajahn Cha (Chah) and other similar Thai Meditation Masters? They joked!!! > Just last Sunday, my good friend, the number two monk at Wat Mongkoltepmunee made several jokes in his sermon (Dhamma Talk). ---------------------------- KH: Perhaps I should steer clear of that topic. I don't want to set myself up as a judger of monks. :-) -------------- > C: FWIW, Buddhism is a happy, positive way of life, do you not agree? -------------- KH: Yes, definitely. But in keeping with my satipatthana-only kind of Buddhism I would say kusala consciousness was always accompanied by happiness. And that is why Buddhism is a happy way of life. For us laymen, jokes and other mildly akusla lobha-based pleasures, are sure to be "intermingled with" our Buddhist way of life, but I wouldn't call them "part of" it. Ken H > C: Post script: Please, next time listen to the complete Dhamma Talk... KH: That's a fair comment. I'll try harder next time. :-) #118967 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:51 pm Subject: Striver? Re this! ( wasRe: "ritual" [reply to Erik] philofillet Hi Sarah > .... > S: Never mind whether it's a monk or a lay person. If there is a "trying to do" without understanding now of kusala and akusala dhammas, it's a ritual. Whenever anything is done, by anyone, with the idea that such doing will lead to samatha, it's a ritual. > Ph: Right you are, thanks. Metta, Phil #118968 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:55 pm Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view sarahprocter... Hi Dieter & Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > " 2. Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii) > Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego," are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. ...." .... S: "In the absolute sense there is only name and form" - this is the point of these similes - in the absolute sense, there are only namas and rupas. Anything else is a concept, an idea, a means of expression only. > I think, you agree as well with : the purpose to emphasize anatta , showing in an absolute/ultimate sense nothing of a core/substance can be found justifying I,Ego or Self ( which is persistent or perish). VisM points out to know things as they really are means to be " on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them" (i.e. detachment) ... S: Yes, like Howard, I agree with you that the purpose is to emphasise anatta - no core, substance or self. As stressed above, Vism and all the teachings point out that in an absolute sense there are only namas and rupas, only elements. It is only through the direct understanding of such namas and rupas as "the All" that there will be a development of dispassion, of detachment towards them. When it's clear that all that is seen and clung to is visible object and so on which fall away as soon as they've arisen and aren't in our control, what's the point of clinging? Metta Sarah ===== #118969 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Striving. was: Meditation. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 18-okt-2011, om 22:27 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > > >We read in the Commentary to the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I, sutta 8) > >about two meanings of the expression: meditate (jhyath). The > >objects of meditation or contemplation, jhna, can be the > >thirtyeight > >objects of samatha or the characteristics beginning with impermanence > >(anicca) of the khandhas and the ytanas( sense-fields). The > >============ > > A.:Buddha taught Noble Eightfold path which includes right view, > sati and jhana, 1st, 7th and 8th factors. Of course wisdom needs to > happen, I haven't said or implied otherwise. I believe that right > view is a must. > > Jhana is done with wisdom. > ------- > N: Yes, pa~n~naa is needed for jhaana. As to right concentration, we often read about jhaana, true. It is quite a discussion whether this means that everybody needs jhaana or not, isn't it? I see that right effort and striving continues to be a topic of discussion. Recently Dan was quoted, and he had a text from the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, the second book of the Abhidhamma. Strive harder and harder, etc. Kh Sujin in her Perfections also speaks about the importance of right effort. Viriya, energy or effort, there is a word association with vira, a heroe. One has to be a heroe to go on and on developing understanding of realities, not being downhearted or discouraged, but with courage and gladness, as Kh Sujin said. We all agree that viriya is a cetasika, not self. But when it comes to the practice, the clinging to self creeps in. That is why you read on the list: we cannot do anything, do not try to have awareness. These are reminders not to try with an idea of self, and we need these reminders. One should not misunderstand such reminders but see them in the context. I quote from my "Journey in Egypt and Turkey": ------- Nina. #118970 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... nilovg Dear Phil, It is not easy to read Vis. without commentary. Perhaps it would help you to read section by section with the Tiika. The whole intro is difficult to read and it may be easier for you to start at Vis. Ch XIV, 34, with ruupas. When you are finished you could return to the beginning. Op 20-okt-2011, om 2:33 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Already questions arise about the moneychanger simile, but there is > probably not much to be said about that, I've heard it discussed, > other people also find it hard to understand how vinnana, sanna and > panna are described in that simile. -------- N: Different degrees of 'knowing'. Tiika: The phrase Perception, etc. this refers to the composing of a simile. Perception is said to be like a child who sees the coin, because it does not make a distinction and it apprehends the object as a mass. Therefore it is said of perception its proximate cause is whatever object has appeared. Consciousness is said to be like the villager who sees the coin, because of its skill of apprehending some distinguishing marks with regard to the object. Understanding should be seen as said to be like the moneychanger who sees the coin, because it understands completely the distinguishing marks with regard to the object. The phrase, by knowing in diverse ways, he explains that by this he knows with regard to the dhamma that is to be understood each single one, and as to the phrase, in diverse ways, it means, true knowledge of them, namely, understanding. Therefore it is said, All dhammas appear to the sphere of knowledge of the Buddha, the Exalted One. ------- Nina. #118971 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:53 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Scott & Phil (Sukin, Ann & all), I sent quite a long response to Scott's message which hasn't shown up and I didn't keep a copy....I was rushing, so probably made a mistake when posting. Anyway, that explains why Phil didn't read it!! Anyway, all dhamma discussion, Scott. Very briefly now in point form - - Scott, I'm very glad to have you around, so no need to 'project' otherwise! - technical details and so on. Different accumulations. Yes, like you, I like to "delve" and study. Others may develop an understanding of realities without ever opening a book. If we set any rule, any 'should' in this regard, it can become another ritual. - KS's comments about how we should study the reality now, the kind of citta etc - all about direct understanding now, not about just accumulating book knowledge as you know and agree. - I referred to comments she's made to some of us about trying to find out the detailed answers, the theory - thinking our way through. All conditioned by self, even if no wrong-view arising at the time. Attachment conditioned by wrong view tendency. (Sukin and Ann will remember this and Nina and Jon will also remember occasions when we've explored some point only to be referred back to the present dhamma again and again). - personal details, practice ...... all gone . If someone thinks they experience jhana, for example, KS will just smile and ask about this moment. By understanding more about present dhammas, we'll all understand more about such so-called experiences and cling less to ideas of practice as anything other than the understanding of dhammas now. Who knows, you may still get the original and Phil may still have a chance to read it through. Meanwhile, just these few cryptic notes as I'm tired now... too tired to even see if they make sense. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Sarah, > > R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." > > Me: "You should start." > > Sarah: "Should?" > > Scott: No disrespect intended but, yes 'should.' Here are some quotes from the Survey: <...> #118972 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:03 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al Warm thanks for reading and replying. I fully respect your opinions and beliefs... I do not understand the Tipitaka well enough to disagree with you... Following, is just my simple response: 1. To me, the Five Precepts were taught by the Historic Buddha which many consider "conventional morality." 2. Ajahn Brahm, in his Australian Friday evening Dhamma Talks, is teaching mostly new Buddhist and/or current Christians. I think he teaches as the Historic Buddha taught - in graduated steps. Somewhat akin to me learning mathematics - first, I learned addition/subtraction; then, multiplying/division; then, algebra; then trigonometry; then, calculus; et cetera... 3. Sure... Is there not a similarity between the Christian Ten Commandments and the Buddhist Five Precepts? A rhetoric question: Where in the Tipitaka is it taught a non-Buddhist may unknowingly teach parts of the 8 & 4? [Sidebar: Some religious historians believe Jesus traveled to a Buddhist area and learned Buddhism during Jesus' early missing years in the Jewish/Christian Canon's] 4. A monk is a sentient being, just as you and I are sentient beings. Ordaining does not make a sentient being any holier, wiser, et cetera than you are!!! Hence, in my personal experiences, one can disagree with a monk. In addition, I do not recall eating with a monk in Thailand or USA whom only ate disagreeable staples. And, most did not mix all the donated staple food in the alms bowl. I never mixed ice cream with my fish curry and steamed jasmine rice... [bummer] 5. It is my personal experience (and as taught when I was in a Roman Catholic Seminary) most laypersons are not interested in Christian Theology/Buddhist Tipitaka. Most are simply interested in "Rites and Rituals." FWIW, the above are my opinions and experiences. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: kenhowardau@... KH: You are talking to a hardliner who believes the Buddha taught satipathana and *only* satipatthana. So I don't include conventional morality among his teachings. When Ven Brahm spoke about mending a mouse-bitten robe I doubt he was describing the characteristics of conditioned dhammas. I suspect he was talking about conventional behaviours and dispositions (e.g., fewness of wants). But I could be wrong, of course. <...> #118973 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:25 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (118229) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > My understanding is that the hindrances are more deeply suppressed, worn away and eradicated with each of the jhanas, which are deeper, more concentrated and more equanimitous states. > =============== J: The suppression of hindrances occasioned by highly developed kusala concentration is a temporary suppression only and does not, and cannot, constitute an eradication or even, as far as I know, a wearing away. Wearing away and eradication is the function of the panna of satipatthana/insight. Consider the following analysis from Vism Ch. I, 10. Discussing the 3-fold division of that text (Sila, Samadhi, Panna), it says: **************************** "10. Here the training of higher virtue is shown by Virtue; the training of higher consciousness, by Concentration and the training of higher understanding, by Understanding. ... "- The necessary condition for the triple clear-vision is shown by Virtue. For with the support of perfected virtue one arrives at the three kinds of clear-vision, but nothing besides that. "- The necessary condition for the six kinds of direct-knowledge is shown by Concentration. For with the support of perfected concentration one arrives at the six kinds of direct-knowledge, but nothing besides that "- The necessary condition for the categories of discrimination is shown by Understanding. For with the support of perfected understanding one arrives at the four kinds of discrimination, but not for any other reason." [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf] **************************** Note in the case of Virtue and Concentration, the emphatic "but nothing besides that", while in the case of Understanding, the equally emphatic "but not for any other reason". > =============== [RE:] In each successive jhana, the peacefulness is much deeper and the experiential objects more refined. Piti and sukkha are seen as unnecessary disturbances from the vantage point of the jhana that is centered in equanimity. So there is an abandonment of worldly stimulus in each successive jhana, that allows for greater concentration and more refined, subtle awareness, and thus for deeper insight. > =============== J: As regards the depth of insight, this depends primarily on the extent to which panna of the insight kind has been accumulated. Absent well-developed panna of the insight kind, the suppression of the hindrances is a high level of samatha bhavana but nothing more, available to those outside the dispensation. > =============== > > J: Not sure what you mean when you say that removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the *requisites* for satipatthana. Surely there can be the development of satipatthana/insight without mundane jhana first being attained? Indeed, you have previously acknowledged that even enlightenment is possible without the attainment of jhana. ( may be missing something in what you say.) > > [RE:] I said it was possible at least in very rare cases when the former accumulations allowed the Buddha to say a word or two, or the person just had to be killed by an ox, in order to reach the final attainment. But in the suttas it is *very rare* and it is not announced as a general path to enlightenment. > =============== J: You are expressing a view that would require a reading of all the references in the suttas to the attainment of enlightenment. Perhaps someone has conducted such a survey, I don't know but, in any event, as I've pointed out before, it's what the Buddha said, i.e., taught, about the matter, rather than the statistics of the time, that need to be considered. I don't know of any sutta passage that directly addresses this point (and I gather you don't either), so it's a matter of consulting the commentaries or drawing inferences from other sutta references. One passage that occurs to me is the Buddha's 'gradual instruction' (see Nyanatiloka entry quoted below), a teaching given on numerous occasions and invariably resulting in the attainment of enlightenment by the listener/s to whom it was addressed. There is no indication in that oft-repeated instruction of a particular role for jhana. From the Buddhist Dictionary (Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines''), by NYANATILOKA ********************************* ānupubbī-kathā 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon; given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths. The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dāna), on moral conduct (sīla) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhānam sāmukkamsikā desanā), that is: suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path." ********************************* http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/aanupubbii_kathaa.htm > =============== > [RE:] And I don't know what level of insight can be attained without jhana or something that equally suppresses the hindrances. I think that the hindrances can gradually be eradicated through pure satipatthana practice, if it is done with both development of sati and samatha. I do think there's a requisite degree of samatha necessary for any meaningful development of the enlightenment factors, and I don't know how much is the minimum. It may be deep samatha, it may be access concentration, or it may be 1st or later jhanas. My knowledge does not extend that far, but I am going by what I have heard and read so far, esp. in sutta. > =============== J: Well I think you can safely assume that if there was a requisite minimum level of samatha for the attainment of enlightenment mentioned anywhere in the texts you'd have heard of it by now! But more pertinent for us is that, as far as I know, there is no suggestion of there being a minimum level of samatha for the development of satipatthana/insight for levels below enlightenment, so the matter is of little practical consequence to us anyway. > =============== > [RE:] What I am sure about is that the Buddha promoted and extolled and urged and practiced the development of jhana as a key ingredient of the path and the development of satipatthana, and also defined it clearly *as* "Right Concentration," a key ingredient of the Noble 8FP. > =============== J: Yes, we've already discussed at some length the fact that Right Concentration of the NEP is defined in terms of the 4 jhanas. And as I think I said then, it is first necessary to understand the context, i.e., what the NEP represents. According to the ancient texts, it represents the mental factors that accompany a moment of path consciousness (magga citta). Jon #118974 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:27 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Sarah, S: "...Who knows, you may still get the original and Phil may still have a chance to read it through..." Thanks, Sarah. I can wait. Scott. #118975 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:20 am Subject: Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... philofillet Hi Nina > It is not easy to read Vis. without commentary. Perhaps it would help > you to read section by section with the Tiika. The whole intro is > difficult to read and it may be easier for you to start at Vis. Ch > XIV, 34, with ruupas. When you are finished you could return to the > beginning. Ph: I was going to start with the beginning of Ch.XIV, but I will take your recommendation. > Consciousness is said to be like the villager who sees the coin, > because of its skill of apprehending some distinguishing marks with > regard to the object. > Understanding should be seen as said to be like the moneychanger who > sees the coin, because it understands completely the distinguishing > marks with regard to the object. Ph: Thank you, a bit hard to understand how vinnana "apprehends some distinguishing marks", I thought it was bare cognition and sanna would find distinguishing marks. Am I misunderstanding something about vinnana? Metta, Phil #118976 From: "connie" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk nichiconn Hi, Chuck. > In addition, I do not recall eating with a monk in Thailand or USA whom only ate disagreeable staples. And, most did not mix all the donated staple food in the alms bowl. I never mixed ice cream with my fish curry and steamed jasmine rice... [bummer] > Why would anyone want to!? Path of Purity ii 70: When at the time of drinking rice-gruel curry is offered in a vessel, he who observes this practice should first eat the curry or drink the rice-gruel. The rice-gruel would become loathsome, if he were to put into it the curry, in which there might be rotted fish and so on. And he should eat nothing that is loathsome. Food is already 'loathsome' enough on it's own, with hunger being one of our greatest foes. > 5. It is my personal experience (and as taught when I was in a Roman Catholic Seminary) most laypersons are not interested in Christian Theology/Buddhist Tipitaka. Most are simply interested in "Rites and Rituals." > because those are "rewarding". butting back out, connie #118977 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Striving. was: Meditation. truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: It is quite a discussion whether this means that everybody needs >jhaana or not, isn't it? >=============================== Thank you for your post. To reach MaggaPhala you need Noble Eightfold path. Noble Eightfold path includes samma-samadhi which is defined as 4 jhanas. So Jhanas are required. Samadhi is the way, no samadhi is no way at all - AN6.64 Jhana Leads to 4 fruits: From Stream to Arhatship. (DN29) Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 I could quote more. >Acharn: "The right Path is not planning when and where sati will >arise. We should not have any idea of `I will develop right >understanding'. >================================== One should do what needs to be done and without Self Views. Set the causes and effects will follow all by themselves. Of course sati, etc, will develop without any Self, as a selfless result. But appropriate causes need to be set. With best wishes, Alex #118978 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:17 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Sarah , Alex , Howard and all, you wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > " 2. Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii) > Just as the word "chariot" is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no chariot; and just as the word "house" is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word "fist" is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word "lute" for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; "army" for elephants, horses, etc; "city" for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; "tree" for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words "living entity" and "Ego," are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as "I am," or "I"; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. ...." .... S: "In the absolute sense there is only name and form" - this is the point of these similes - in the absolute sense, there are only namas and rupas. Anything else is a concept, an idea, a means of expression only. D: I like to emphasize: in the absolute sense " when we come to examine the parts one by one" (as it is said above ) S: (D: > I think, you agree as well with : the purpose to emphasize anatta , showing in an absolute/ultimate sense nothing of a core/substance can be found justifying I,Ego or Self ( which is persistent or perish). VisM points out to know things as they really are means to be " on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them" (i.e. detachment) ... S: Yes, like Howard, I agree with you that the purpose is to emphasise anatta - no core, substance or self. As stressed above, Vism and all the teachings point out that in an absolute sense there are only namas and rupas, only elements. It is only through the direct understanding of such namas and rupas as "the All" that there will be a development of dispassion, of detachment towards them. When it's clear that all that is seen and clung to is visible object and so on which fall away as soon as they've arisen and aren't in our control, what's the point of clinging? D: well, the point of clinging is the thirst and unfortunately it is very difficult to want what one will or not will Important point of the discussion was/is the issue of reality . I still like to claim that there are 2 realities , the everyday or common one and the abolute/ultimate one, The choice of view is up to the unique experience of the individual , the conscient being . I ask a friend about the conclusion , Howard agreed being a fair expression of his view: D: "the 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" I would be interested to learn whether you agree with this proposition (?) (Related to this the Abhidhammic point of concept in contrast to Paramattha Dhammas)" M: That is a famous simile( D: Milinda Panha , the chariot ) of course. And I found a parallel logical argument used in British philosophy by Ryle, where he talks of the university as not being other than the buildings and activities. Anyway, back to your friend's comment here. What do I think of it? I suppose its import depends on how we consider, or rather what we consider a given reality to be. What makes something a second reality rather than some other already-considered first reality? In philosophy that's called the problem or the issue or the principle of individuation. Anyway, is a configuration of elements a new reality, other than the elements themselves. I am reminded of a famous American philosopher Nelson Goodman, who in ontological matters was a nominalist. So he would agree totally with your friend's comment (if I understand it correctly): there are only particulars would be the principle there. So groups are not new realities but simply arrangements of already-acknowledged realities. Here, to keep the context in mind, though, the issue with that simile is something about offering a new way to understand what it is that we are (or have been) thinking of as the person. And that in fact, there is no such additional reality as a person. And that considering the components that we are grouping together as a person will be more useful in our coming to appreciate what is going on, and have us free ourselves of the misinformation (avijja) that we are ongoing entities. So this way of putting it, as I have just done, is not taking as primary the issue of whether it's a view or a conceptual view (that may be a redundant term, if there are no views that are not "conceptual" ones, by the way), but, rather, as primary the issue of how to allow ourselves (or people in general) a way to separate mentally, or dissociate ourselves or disidentify ourselves with the whole story, in order to give us freedom of understanding and freedom from dukkha. It becomes a practical suggestion not an ontological one, as in the ideas suggested in the simile of the raft and the far shore ... comments invited. ;o) I think it is beautifully said ( B.T.W. : M. stands for Mitchell Ginsberg/Jinavamsa , who gave permission to quote him. I suppose a number of members have met him on-list ) with Metta Dieter #118979 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Striving. was: Meditation. truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: It is quite a discussion whether this means that everybody needs >jhaana or not, isn't it? >=============================== Thank you for your post. To reach MaggaPhala you need Noble Eightfold path. Noble Eightfold path includes samma-samadhi which is defined as 4 jhanas. So Jhanas are required. Samadhi is the way, no samadhi is no way at all - AN6.64 Jhana Leads to 4 fruits: From Stream to Arhatship. (DN29) Jhana IS the path to awakening - MN36 I could quote more. >Acharn: "The right Path is not planning when and where sati will >arise. We should not have any idea of `I will develop right >understanding'. >================================== One should do what needs to be done and without Self Views. Set the causes and effects will follow all by themselves. Of course sati, etc, will develop without any Self, as a selfless result. But appropriate causes need to be set. With best wishes, Alex #118980 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:23 am Subject: was striving. Now: Understanding truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, A person can learn entire tipitaka, commentaries, subcommentaries, etc. When asked, the person would give the right book answer. But how far would this person progress when it comes to cessation of clinging? Knowledge of words is like knowledge of the menu. While helpful, one needs to actually "eat" to stop being hungry. In my experience, yes I know many scholarly points, but I still get irritated and lustful even though I know that these are wrong and ultimately nothing other than my delusion causes me to have lobha and dosa. While intellectual understanding helps at counteracting gross bad kinds of thoughts, it doesn't seem to help much against irrational lobha / dosa. These are emotions and as we know, as much as I wish it to be otherwise, but emotions are not always solved by reason. This is where I believe the bliss of samadhi is so important and retraining the mind to percieve things in ways that would diminish lobha/dosa. With best wishes, Alex #118981 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:41 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view truth_aerator Hello Dieter, Sarah, all, >D:I like to emphasize: in the absolute sense " when we come to >examine the parts one by one" (as it is said above ) >========================= You are absolutely right. If one engages in intentional activity of looking only at what I believes to be particulars (a concept) then one will not find wholes because one is not looking for them. But then the whole "whole/parts" dichotomy is itself conventional. It is purely arbitrary judgement about what is whole and what is part. A tree is whole compared to leaves, but a part when compared to the ecosystem. A human is part of humanity but a whole when compared to the body parts. I have problem with mahayana-like emptiness teachings. It is strange, on one hand you use the external world on the other hand you deny it. You can't exist while believing only in dhammas and no conventional reality. I believe that the standard pointer of the Buddha is better: anicca->dukkha->anatta. There is no Eternal and permanent Self or the world. 5 year old Johny is not exactly identical to 25 year old Johny who may have developed a new personality, but neither is totally different. Same process which does exist. And John at current age will change as well, and so on. With best wishes, Alex #118982 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:27 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (118229) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > My understanding is that the hindrances are more deeply suppressed, worn away and eradicated with each of the jhanas, which are deeper, more concentrated and more equanimitous states. > > =============== > > J: The suppression of hindrances occasioned by highly developed kusala concentration is a temporary suppression only and does not, and cannot, constitute an eradication or even, as far as I know, a wearing away. Wearing away and eradication is the function of the panna of satipatthana/insight. Oh....I've got to find that sutta that Alex quoted. It said that when you suppress the defilements for a period of time, like a monkey tied to a tree who gets out of the habit of wandering and doing bad things, thus getting trained, the defilements likewise wither away and eventually get eradicated. > Consider the following analysis from Vism Ch. I, 10. Discussing the 3-fold division of that text (Sila, Samadhi, Panna), it says: > > **************************** > "10. Here the training of higher virtue is shown by Virtue; the training of higher consciousness, by Concentration and the training of higher understanding, by Understanding. ... > > "- The necessary condition for the triple clear-vision is shown by Virtue. For with the support of perfected virtue one arrives at the three kinds of clear-vision, but nothing besides that. > "- The necessary condition for the six kinds of direct-knowledge is shown by Concentration. For with the support of perfected concentration one arrives at the six kinds of direct-knowledge, but nothing besides that. Well...of course Buddha defines Concentration as Jhana, so... > "- The necessary condition for the categories of discrimination is shown by Understanding. For with the support of perfected understanding one arrives at the four kinds of discrimination, but not for any other reason." > > [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf] > **************************** > > Note in the case of Virtue and Concentration, the emphatic "but nothing besides that", while in the case of Understanding, the equally emphatic "but not for any other reason". That seems to give concentration/jhana a pretty exclusive role in developing the six kinds of direct-knowledge. Even if you define concentration as jhana OR equivalent concentration gained through accumulations, it still makes jhana pretty darned important. In that case, jhana [for those who can manage it] would have a much more direct route to the concentration that gives higher knowledge. > > =============== > [RE:] In each successive jhana, the peacefulness is much deeper and the experiential objects more refined. Piti and sukkha are seen as unnecessary disturbances from the vantage point of the jhana that is centered in equanimity. So there is an abandonment of worldly stimulus in each successive jhana, that allows for greater concentration and more refined, subtle awareness, and thus for deeper insight. > > =============== > > J: As regards the depth of insight, this depends primarily on the extent to which panna of the insight kind has been accumulated. Absent well-developed panna of the insight kind, the suppression of the hindrances is a high level of samatha bhavana but nothing more, available to those outside the dispensation. Doesn't a high level of samatha of the strength of jhana arise in the the higher vipassana-nanas? I don't know the specifics as well as you would - maybe you can say when jhana-strength concentration comes into play in the development of the higher insights leading to enlightenment. It seems that as a cetasika concentration does have an important role to play in conjunction with insight, does it not? > > =============== > > > J: Not sure what you mean when you say that removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the *requisites* for satipatthana. Surely there can be the development of satipatthana/insight without mundane jhana first being attained? Indeed, you have previously acknowledged that even enlightenment is possible without the attainment of jhana. ( may be missing something in what you say.) Well I am going by the discussions we've had about the suttas in which it is said that there is a requisite resolution of the hindrances before steady satipatthana leading to insight can be developed. For concentration and sati to develop, doesn't there have to be some suppression or resolution of the hindrances? Also, I remember reading some commentary material that described the disruptive and disturbing qualities of the hindrances, [as opposites of samatha, for instance,] keeping kusala from arising, and that it took a certain degree of samatha to still these disturbances. > > [RE:] I said it was possible at least in very rare cases when the former accumulations allowed the Buddha to say a word or two, or the person just had to be killed by an ox, in order to reach the final attainment. But in the suttas it is *very rare* and it is not announced as a general path to enlightenment. > > =============== > > J: You are expressing a view that would require a reading of all the references in the suttas to the attainment of enlightenment. Perhaps someone has conducted such a survey, I don't know but, in any event, as I've pointed out before, it's what the Buddha said, i.e., taught, about the matter, rather than the statistics of the time, that need to be considered. I don't necessarily see those examples that arose from time to time and that Buddha addressed, as a teaching. It's not one of those generic "there is the case where a monk goes to the forest and puts mindfulness before him..." where it is obvious that it is something regularly practiced by many, many monks, but is given as a particular example of an individual. So I would think the Buddha would have to say something a little more generic about this being a pathway for enlightenment, rather than just an example here or there. One good quote would do it, not a complete survey! > I don't know of any sutta passage that directly addresses this point (and I gather you don't either), so it's a matter of consulting the commentaries or drawing inferences from other sutta references. Well if there is a sutta reference that one can infer this from, I'd be happy to see it, and then maybe we can discuss it. I was looking at Moggalana, but I see he went through all the stages of meditation and all the jhanas before becoming an arahant. BTW, this is an aside on another subject, a recurrent one, but I see that the Buddha clearly instructed Moggalana how to avoid drowsiness when meditating, rather than to allow whatever dhamma happened to be arising. Here's the end of a long passage of such advice: 8. "But if, by doing so, drowsiness does not vanish, you may, mindfully and clearly aware, lie down, lion-like, on your right side, placing foot on foot, keeping in mind the thought of rising; and on awakening, you should quickly get up, thinking 'I must not indulge in the comfort of resting and reclining, in the pleasure of sleeping.' "Thus, Moggallana, should you train yourself." Anguttara Nikaya VII, 58 Jon, this is very clearly a "formal meditation" instruction, an instruction to do a specific conventional activity in order to achieve a meditative aim with regard to a hindrance. He does not say "see it as an arising dhamma." He says "Do X to fight the drowsiness." The Buddha is full of such devices in the stanzas that precede this final one. Here's another one in another area of activity: "Further, Moggallana, you should train yourself in this way. You should think, 'When calling at families (on the alms-round), I shall not be given to pride.' > One passage that occurs to me is the Buddha's 'gradual instruction' (see Nyanatiloka entry quoted below), a teaching given on numerous occasions and invariably resulting in the attainment of enlightenment by the listener/s to whom it was addressed. There is no indication in that oft-repeated instruction of a particular role for jhana. > > From the Buddhist Dictionary (Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines''), by NYANATILOKA > > ********************************* > ānupubbī-kathā > > 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon; given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths. The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: > "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dāna), on moral conduct (sīla) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhānam sāmukkamsikā desanā), that is: > suffering, > its cause, > its ceasing, > and the path." > ********************************* > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/aanupubbii_kathaa.htm Well, that does indicate that when the Buddha personally "prepares your mind for the teaching," exceptional things can happen. I can well imagine that, but don't see that he gave this as something that could generally be used as a path to enlightenment without the Buddha's personal participation. But I admit it could be, under the right conditions. The only way we know this particular path would work, though, is when the Buddha is personally in charge. There doesn't seem to be an extrapolation from this from the Buddha that this can be done in other circumstances, without his help. > > =============== > > [RE:] And I don't know what level of insight can be attained without jhana or something that equally suppresses the hindrances. I think that the hindrances can gradually be eradicated through pure satipatthana practice, if it is done with both development of sati and samatha. I do think there's a requisite degree of samatha necessary for any meaningful development of the enlightenment factors, and I don't know how much is the minimum. It may be deep samatha, it may be access concentration, or it may be 1st or later jhanas. My knowledge does not extend that far, but I am going by what I have heard and read so far, esp. in sutta. > > =============== > > J: Well I think you can safely assume that if there was a requisite minimum level of samatha for the attainment of enlightenment mentioned anywhere in the texts you'd have heard of it by now! But I thought it was said in commentary that for the path factors to arise they have to arise with a jhana-level of samatha. Not so? > But more pertinent for us is that, as far as I know, there is no suggestion of there being a minimum level of samatha for the development of satipatthana/insight for levels below enlightenment, so the matter is of little practical consequence to us anyway. Hm...this seems contradictory to what has been said before. Maybe you can clarify the role of samatha as a factor in these stages. > > =============== > > [RE:] What I am sure about is that the Buddha promoted and extolled and urged and practiced the development of jhana as a key ingredient of the path and the development of satipatthana, and also defined it clearly *as* "Right Concentration," a key ingredient of the Noble 8FP. > > =============== > > J: Yes, we've already discussed at some length the fact that Right Concentration of the NEP is defined in terms of the 4 jhanas. And as I think I said then, it is first necessary to understand the context, i.e., what the NEP represents. According to the ancient texts, it represents the mental factors that accompany a moment of path consciousness (magga citta). Well at the very least this level of jhana as a mental factor is necessary for the path to arise. Then it's a question of it arising as part of development of jhana-citta, or how and when it can arise by other means related to insight. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118983 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:12 am Subject: Do you wield power over khandas? (was [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny philofillet Hi all I like this post that quotes from a sutta which makes it clear that thinking we can control dhammas is wrong. Of course all the Strivers! here will deny that they believe they can "wield power over those feelings (etc) as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise", so who is spinning this sutta, me or them? Only understanding can tell. Metta, Phil > A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in > the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccak\ a-sutta-e1.htm > > This is a debate between Aggivessana, the Nigantha's son, and the > Buddha. Here are a couple of excerpts: > > Aggivessana: Good Gotama, a comparison occurs to me. > > Buddha: Say it Aggivessana. > > A: Like these seed groups and vegetable groups that grow and develop, > established and supported on earth . So also all powerful work, that has > to be done, should be done, established and supported on earth. In the > same manner this person, established in matter, with the material self > accrues merit or demerit. This feeling person established in feelings > accrues merit or demerit. The perceiving person established in > perceptions accrues merit or demerit. The determining person established > in determinations, accrues merit or demerit. The conscious person > established in consciousness, accrues merit or demerit.. > > B: Aggivessana, do you say Matter is my self. Feelings are my self. > Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Conscioussness is > my self.? > > A: Good Gotama, I say. matter is my self. Feelings are my self. > Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Consciousness is my > self, so also this large crowd says it. > > > Aggivessana, you say that, matter is your self, do you wield power over > that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise? No, good > Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier > does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, > feelings are your self, do you wield power over those feelings, as may > my feelings be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend > carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree > with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, perceptions are your > self, do you wield power over those perceptions, as may my perceptions > be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and > reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier, does not agree with what you > say now.. Aggivessana, you, say that determinations are your self, do > you wield power over those determinations, as may my determinations be > thus and not otherwise. No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply > Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. > Aggivessana, you, say that consciousness is your self, do you wield > power over that consciousness, as may my consciousness be thus and not > otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What > you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. What do you > think, Aaggivessana, is matter permanent or impermanent? Impermanent > good Gotama. That impermanent thing, is it unpleasant or pleasant? > Unpleasant good Gotama. That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is > it suitable to be considered; that is mine, that I be, that is my self? > No good Gotama.. Aggivessana, are feelingsare perceptions,--are > determinations,--is consciousness permanent or impermanent? Impermanent > good Gotama. That impermanent thing is it unpleasant or pleasant? > Unpleasant, good Gotama.That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is > it suitable to be considered, that is mine, that I be, that is my self? > No, good Gotama..Aggivessana, a certain one clinging to unpleasantness, > over powered by it, pressed down by it and reflecting it's mine, would > think it's my self. Would he accurately understand unpleasantness by > himself or ward it off and abide? Good Gotama, how could it be. No, good > Gotama, that would not happen. > #118984 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:01 am Subject: Do you wield power over khandas? (was [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny sarahprocter... Hi Phil, it's great that you're reposting some of these old posts with excellent quotes. Would you mind giving a link to the original message or at least a post # and name of poster so that any of us can trace back and look at the original thread if we wish and at least acknowledge the work of the poster. Thanks in advance. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi all > > I like this post that quotes from a sutta which makes it clear that thinking we can control dhammas is wrong. Of course all the Strivers! here will deny that they believe they can "wield power over those feelings (etc) as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise", so who is spinning this sutta, me or them? Only understanding can tell. > > Metta, > Phil > > > > A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in > > the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccak\ a-sutta-e1.htm <....> #118985 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:40 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Connie, et al Sincere warm thanks for reading and replying. ................................................................................\ ........................ <...> > In addition, I do not recall eating with a monk in Thailand or USA whom only ate disagreeable staples. And, most did not mix all the donated staple food in the alms bowl. I never mixed ice cream with my fish curry and steamed jasmine rice... [bummer] > Why would anyone want to!? Path of Purity ii 70: When at the time of drinking rice-gruel curry is offered in a vessel, he who observes this practice should first eat the curry or drink the rice-gruel. The rice-gruel would become loathsome, if he were to put into it the curry, in which there might be rotted fish and so on. And he should eat nothing that is loathsome. Food is already 'loathsome' enough on it's own, with hunger being one of our greatest foes. ................................................................................\ ...................................................................... Chuck: Usually, I put all the donated staple food in my alms bowl and mixed it all together. Then, I would put any fresh fruit on top. A rare ice cream, I would give to another monk. Usually, I ate alone in my kuti. When, I ate with other monks I followed their practice - i. e., sitting on a chair and eating with a plate, etc. on the table. The reason: VI. Bowl-food-eater's Practice (pattapindik'anga) eating food from his bowl in which it is mixed together rather than from plates and dishes. An example of eating at the table was when my teacher and I would weekly spend a twelve (12) hour shift attending to His Holiness, The Supreme Patriarch of Thailand. Source: With Robes and Bowl, Glimpses of the Thudong Bhikkhu Life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel083.html#pre ................................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ................... > 5. It is my personal experience (and as taught when I was in a Roman Catholic Seminary) most laypersons are not interested in Christian Theology/Buddhist Tipitaka. Most are simply interested in "Rites and Rituals." > because those are "rewarding". Chuck: Yes. .......................................... butting back out, connie <....> #118986 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:56 am Subject: Patience is the Highest Praxis! bhikkhu5 Friends: Patience is the 6th Perfection: The characteristic of patience is acceptance, its function is to endure, and its manifestation is non-opposing tolerance! The cause of patience is understanding how things really are.. The effect of patience is calm tranquility despite presence of intensely stirring provocation.. Patience of the will produces forgiving forbearance! Patience of the intellect produces faith, confidence and certainty! Patience of the body produces resolute and tenacious endurance! Internal tolerance of states within oneself is patient endurance... External tolerance of other beings is forbearance and forgiveness... He who patiently protects himself, protects also all other beings! He who patiently protects all other beings, protects also himself! Not from speaking much is one called clever. The patient one is free from anger and free from fear, only such steady persisting one, is rightly called clever... Dhammapada 258 Patient tolerance is the highest praxis... Nibbna is the supreme Bliss! So say all the Buddhas. Dhammapada 184 The innocent one, who has done nothing wrong, Who endures abuse, flogging and even imprisonment, Such one, armed with stamina, the great force of tolerance, Such stoic one, who self-possessed can accept, I call a Holy One! Dhammapada 399 One should follow those who are determined, tolerant, and enduring, intelligent, wise, diligent, clever, good-willed and evidently Noble. One shall stick to them as the moon remains in its regular orbit. Dhammapada 208 Friends, even if bandits were to cut you up, savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, you should not get angry, but do my bidding: Remain pervading them and all others with a friendly Awareness imbued with an all-embracing good-will, kind, rich, expansive, and immeasurable! Free from hostility, free from any ill will. Always remembering this very Simile of the Saw is indeed how you should train yourselves. Majjhima Nikya 21 The five ways of removing irritating annoyance: Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which any irritation can be entirely removed by a Bhikkhu, when it arises in him. What are these five ways? 1: Friendliness can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 2: Understanding can be undertaken towards an irritating person or state.. 3: On-looking Equanimity can be kept towards an irritating person or state.. 4: One can forget and ignore the irritating person, mental or physical state.. 5: Ownership of Kamma of the irritating person can be reflected upon thus: This good person is owner of his actions, inherit the result his actions, is indeed born of his actions and only he is responsible for his actions be they good or bad. This too is how annoyance with the irksome can be instantly removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, and by which any irritation can be entirely removed in a friend, exactly when it arises... A nguttara Nikya V 161 Buddha to his son Rhula : Develop an Imperturbable Mind like the elements: Rhula, develop a mind like earth, then contacts of arisen like and dislike will not obsess your mind! Rhula, on the earth is dumped both the pure and the impure: excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, but the earth does not detest any of those... Even and exactly so make your mind stable like the earth! Rhula, develop a mind like water, then contacts of arisen pleasure and pain will not seize your mind. Rhula with water both the pure and the impure are cleaned... Washed away with water are excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the water does not despise any of that! Even so make the mind fluid and adaptable like the water! Rhula, develop a mind like fire, then the contacts of any arisen attraction or aversion will neither consume, nor hang on to your mind! Rhula, fire burns both the pure and the impure, burns excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the fire does not loathe any of that.. In the same manner refine the mind into a tool like an all consuming and purifying fire! Rhula, develop a mind similar to space, then contacts of arisen delight and frustration does neither take hold of, nor remain in your mind. Space does not settle anywhere! Similarly make the mind unsettled and unestablished like open space. When you expand mind like space, contacts of delight and frustration will neither be able to dominate, nor obsess your mind... Majjhima Nikya 62 More on the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Patience is the Highest Praxis! #118987 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:09 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Connie, et al, Seems someone deleted portions of my message... [beeg Texican bummers] I suppose this will be deleted as well.. [sigh] > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: dhammasaro@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:40:54 -0400 > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk > > Good friend Connie, et al > > Sincere warm thanks for reading and replying. > ................................................................................\ ........................ > <...> > > In addition, I do not recall eating with a monk in Thailand or USA whom only ate disagreeable staples. And, most did not mix all the donated staple food in the alms bowl. I never mixed ice cream with my fish curry and steamed jasmine rice... [bummer] > > > > > Why would anyone want to!? > > > > Path of Purity ii 70: When at the time of drinking rice-gruel curry is offered in a vessel, he who observes this practice should first eat the curry or drink the rice-gruel. The rice-gruel would become loathsome, if he were to put into it the curry, in which there might be rotted fish and so on. And he should eat nothing that is loathsome. > > > > > > Food is already 'loathsome' enough on it's own, with hunger being one of our greatest foes. > ................................................................................\ ...................................................................... > Chuck: Usually, I put all the donated staple food in my alms bowl and mixed it all together. Then, I would put any fresh fruit on top. A rare ice cream, I would give to another monk. Usually, I ate alone in my kuti. When, I ate with other monks I followed their practice - i. e., sitting on a chair and eating with a plate, etc. on the table. > The reason: > > VI. Bowl-food-eater's Practice (pattapindik'anga) eating food from his bowl in which it is mixed together rather than from plates and dishes. > An example of eating at the table was when my teacher and I would weekly spend a twelve (12) hour shift attending to His Holiness, The Supreme Patriarch of Thailand. > Source: With Robes and Bowl, Glimpses of the Thudong Bhikkhu Life > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel083.html#pre > > ................................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ................... > > > 5. It is my personal experience (and as taught when I was in a Roman Catholic Seminary) most laypersons are not interested in Christian Theology/Buddhist Tipitaka. Most are simply interested in "Rites and Rituals." > > > > > because those are "rewarding". > > > Chuck: Yes. > > .......................................... > butting back out, > > connie > <....> #118988 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:02 pm Subject: Model discussion. scottduncan2 All, Consider the following discussion vignette (dsg.org, Bangkok 28, 29 & 30 July 2001 (Erik and friends, 28 July, morning): E: "My Theravada has been the Visuddhimagga and I have not finished reading the entire Visuddhimagga but I have been studying it for for a few months now. I began really practicing in Zen and then I studied Tibetan Buddhism under [someone] who is the Abbott of [some] Monastery in Tibet, one of the highest ranking lamas in North America now. His teachers were the Dalia Lama's private tutors [someone] and [someone] and [someone]. He is a master of Buddhist logic [some sort of] logic and a master of Buddhist debate and a master of Buddhist [something] so he is my primary teacher." Kh. S (Interrupting): "And the purpose of study?" E: (Quickly) "The purpose of study is to achieve buddhahood in this life-time." Kh. S (Also quickly): "And what is buddhahood?" E: "Well, buddhahood in the definition of Mahayana is -" Kh. S (Interrupting): "I think if we leave all the terms personal terms like Mahayana or Hinayana out it is your own understanding now." E: "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Buddhahood is full awakening complete awakening to all realities plus all of the abi~n~nas of a Tathagata." Kh. S: "You mean 'this moment?'" E: "In this moment as well as in general. I'm speaking conventionally here." Kh. S: "Yeah but what is real at this moment now?" E: "I'm not sure I understand..." Kh.S: "Should that be known? What is real now? That everyone knows about it like seeing, hearing. Is it is seeing real?" E: "I'm trying to understand how to phrase this-" Kh. S (Interrupting): "Because what you take for yourself or the world in the absolute sense there must be the nature or the element which can be divided into two categories: the one that cannot experience anything at all and the one that can experience, can know, can cognize object like now." E: "Okay..." Kh. S: "If there is only the reality which cannot experience which in Paa.li we use the term 'ruupa' " E: "Mm hm." Kh.S: "If there is only ruupa without any experiencing of ruupa, ruupa cannot be known or be cognized. No one knows about it." E: "Right. There must be naama..." Scott: Clearly the discussants are coming from different places. Even thought E. is a guest, Kh. Sujin directly, quickly, and even somewhat brusquely works him into a position of having to abandon his own agenda and start to define terms. The former process forces E. to have to shift away from what is clearly part of a rote set of information, into unknown territory. The latter process of defining terms allows for a test for common ground and a jumping-off into discussion. Listen to the whole thing. E. gets quite a workout. Scott. #118989 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > My understanding is that the hindrances are more deeply suppressed, worn away and eradicated with each of the jhanas, which are deeper, more concentrated and more equanimitous states. > > > =============== > > > > J: The suppression of hindrances occasioned by highly developed kusala concentration is a temporary suppression only and does not, and cannot, constitute an eradication or even, as far as I know, a wearing away. Wearing away and eradication is the function of the panna of satipatthana/insight. > > [RE:] Oh....I've got to find that sutta that Alex quoted. It said that when you suppress the defilements for a period of time, like a monkey tied to a tree who gets out of the habit of wandering and doing bad things, thus getting trained, the defilements likewise wither away and eventually get eradicated. > =============== J: Is this the sutta passage you have in mind (from a post of Alex's)? Also an interesting sutta: "Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope. Catching a snake, he would bind it with a strong rope. Catching a crocodile... a bird... a dog... a hyena... a monkey, he would bind it with a strong rope. Binding them all with a strong rope, he would tether them to a strong post or stake.[1] "Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats, would each pull toward its own range & habitat. The snake would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the anthill.' The crocodile would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the water.' The bird would pull, thinking, 'I'll fly up into the air.' The dog would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the village.' The hyena would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the charnel ground.' The monkey would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the forest.' And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they would stand, sit, or lie down right there next to the post or stake. In the same way, when a monk whose mindfulness immersed in the body is developed & pursued, the eye does not pull toward pleasing forms, and unpleasing forms are not repellent. The ear does not pull toward pleasing sounds... The nose does not pull toward pleasing aromas... The tongue does not pull toward pleasing flavors... The body does not pull toward pleasing tactile sensations... The intellect does not pull toward pleasing ideas, and unpleasing ideas are not repellent. This, monks, is restraint. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding. We will steady it, consolidate it, and set about it properly.' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.206.than.html See Alex's message at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117414 Jon #118990 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Model discussion. philofillet Hi Scott, thanks for the transcription, a very memorable exchange. You gotta hear E's voice to get the full flavour. And should be added that while vocal, he maintained the attitude of a guest throughout the session, which stretched over several days, and never was dismissive of what he was being told, though he may have felt dismissive, he knew he was a guest. I was quite impressed by tgat attitude, though maybe editing helped... But getting him down to paramattha terms tout de suite, that was the key to avoid endless circling and dodging leading to eventual a2d. A Sujin is tops at that. No, even more immediate than paramattha "terms", whatever the reality is, no matter the word we use, of course tgat reality is always paramattha. You are not A Sujin, of course, but if you are willing to continue to be the poster who elbows and cross checks people into paramattha corners, I welcome it, I can enjoy the benefits and return to being Mr. Friendly. Keep up the good work, don't drop your gloves. :) Metta, Phil #118991 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:36 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Jon (Rob E.), I'll send this again. Yahoo must be eating posts. Walshe's version: "Suppose, monks, a man catches six animals of different domains and different resorts of living a snake, a crocodile, a bird, a dog, a jackal and a monkey, tethering each with a stout rope. Having tethered them with a stout rope, he fastens the ropes together in the middle, he lets go of them. Now, monks, these six animals of different domains and feeding habits would swing around and struggle, each trying to get to his natural domain. The snake would struggle, thinking 'I'll get to the ant-hill'; the crocodile: 'I'll get into the water'; the bird: 'I'll fly up in the air'' the dog: 'I'll make for the village'; the jackal: 'I'll make for the charnel-ground'; the monkey: 'I'll head for the forest.' "Now, monks, when those six hungry animals grew weary, they would yield to the one that was the strongest, go his way and be under his power. In the same way, monks, whenever a monk fails to practice and develop mindfulness as to body, the eye struggles to draw him towards attractive objects, while unattractive objects are repellent to him... The mind struggles to draw him towards attractive objects of thought, while unattractive objects of thought are repellent to him. This, monks, is lack of restraint. And what, monks, is restraint? In this, a monk, seeing objects with the eye, is not drawn to attractive objects, is not repelled by unattractive objects. He remains with firmly established mindfulness as to body, his mind being unrestricted.[1] He knows in truth that liberation of the heart, that liberation by wisdom,[2] through which those evil, unskilled states that have arisen pass away without remainder... "Suppose a man catches six animals (as before), and he fastens the rope together to a stout post or pillar... Then, when those six animals grow weary, they would have to stand, crouch or lie down by the stout post or pillar. In the same way, monks, when a monk practices and develops mindfulness as to the body, the eye does not struggle to draw him towards attractive visual objects, nor are unattractive visual objects repellent to him... the mind does not struggle to draw him towards attractive objects of thought, nor are unattractive objects of thought repellent to him. This, monks, is restraint. "'Tethered to a stout post or pillar,' monks, denotes mindfulness as to body. Therefore, monks, this is how you must train yourselves: 'We shall practice mindfulness as to body, develop it, make it our vehicle, our dwelling-place, our resort, we will build it up and undertake it thoroughly.' This, monks, is how you must train yourselves." Scott. #118992 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:49 pm Subject: Re: Model discussion. scottduncan2 Phil, P: "...You are not A Sujin, of course, but if you are willing to continue to be the poster who elbows and cross checks people into paramattha corners, I welcome it, I can enjoy the benefits and return to being Mr. Friendly. Keep up the good work, don't drop your gloves." Scott: Thanks but I'm not into being 'type-cast' either. The above is a bit of a caricature (I know, you're a writer, so sue you), as you know. I don't mind giving as good as I get, within reason, but I stop when told. I'm not always 'unfriendly' but don't like to beat around the bush. I also don't dig heavies from other sites showing up and throwing some weight around, since we're on the topic, but whatever. I'll keep questioning meditators *here* if I want to. I'd never go onto their sites and question meditators. That would be almost as rude as showing up here from there to push me around. Except yeah, I don't care. By the way, don't you have to drop your gloves to fight? Oh except if you do you'll get a game misconduct so you leave them on nowadays like a sissy and give facewashes. Scott. #118993 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk philofillet Hi Chuck Thanks for the posts. Re Ajahn Brahm, I've listened to his talks in the past and must admit they were refreshing. Feeling refreshed and cheered up is good, life is hard. But panna can lead out of samsara and I don't recall him ever speaking in paramattha terms in his talks. Feeling happier and more peaceful isn't if much use if there isn't understanding that such moods are made up of fleeting, thoroughly unreliable dhammas. And sych moids are akmist sure to be rooted in akusala, attachment to them, can that possibly help in the long run. As for the couple holding hands as they died, well, to each his own. For me it made me feel more certain than ever that I would like to be single in my senior years! The intensity of that attachment! But there is a sutta that says couples whose virtue and understanding is in perfect tune will be reunited (in some sense or other) in the next lifetime, so the Buddha does indeed praise perfected marriage. Metta, Phil #118994 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: Model discussion. philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: Thanks but I'm not into being 'type-cast' either. The above is a bit of a caricature (I know, you're a writer, so sue you), as you know. I don't mind giving as good as I get, within reason, but I stop when told. I'm not always 'unfriendly' but don't like to beat around the bush. Ph: No, no. No escaping your type cast now, Scott. You are like Bob Denver, your future career potential has been destroyed by your mastery of your role. Look at the way Sean Avery tried to reshape himself as gritty but clean forward. I had him on my fantasy team for his PIM last year and he didn't get in a fight for the entire second half of the season! What a douche. Right, I should have said body check into corners, but no elbowing, keep your stick down and don't drop your gloves. But no nice stuff!!! Your nice days are gone, mister. ;) ;) ;) Metta, Phil #118995 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:31 pm Subject: Do you wield power over khandas? (was [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny philofillet Hi Sarah Will do, thanks also for awesome explanation re sanna. I wrote a seperate thanks but it hasn't showed. Funny how most posts appear immediately, and others disappear forever. I will write again re sanna when I'm on the computer. Metta, Phil #118996 From: Vince Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:58 pm Subject: Music and Abhidhamma cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email It seems in the Buddha times the music was not so frequent as today. However, today we are flooded by music everywhere at any time. We can be detached easily when we hear just sounds. However, How can we explain, in Abhidhamma terms, the strange speed or strong attachment we can develop when hearing music? What happens? #118997 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:13 pm Subject: Re: Model discussion. scottduncan2 Phil, P: "...You are like Bob Denver..." Scott: What? Gilligan's Freakin' Island? That's it, boyo. Drop 'em. Why not like Rutger Hauer at least? Or maybe Leonard Nimoy. Now that's a tough one... Scott. #118998 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:51 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Phil, et al Phil, please see my private message to you.. My most object apology to you all in my most abject error in starting this mundane thread... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: philco777@... <..> Hi Chuck Thanks for the posts. Re Ajahn Brahm, I've listened to his talks in the past and must admit they were refreshing. Feeling refreshed and cheered up is good, life is hard. But panna can lead out of samsara and I don't recall him ever speaking in paramattha terms in his talks. Feeling happier and more peaceful isn't if much use if there isn't understanding that such moods are made up of fleeting, thoroughly unreliable dhammas. And sych moids are akmist sure to be rooted in akusala, attachment to them, can that possibly help in the long run. As for the couple holding hands as they died, well, to each his own. For me it made me feel more certain than ever that I would like to be single in my senior years! The intensity of that attachment! But there is a sutta that says couples whose virtue and understanding is in perfect tune will be reunited (in some sense or other) in the next lifetime, so the Buddha does indeed praise perfected marriage. <....> #118999 From: "charlest" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Couple Married 72 Years Die Holding Hands plus Ajahn Brahm Dhamma Talk dhammasaro Good friend Phil, Appears I yet wrote wrong... [bummer] Many hours ago, I wrote (paraphrase): 1. Imho, the Brit Theoretical Physicist monk in Australia was teaching to new Buddhist and Christians at his Friday evening Dhamma Talks.. 2. Durn, I deleted... I fergit.... [bummers] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > rest deleted by order....................